Lipschutz v. Quigley
| Decision Date | 14 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 9952. |
| Citation | 287 F. 395 |
| Parties | LIPSCHUTZ v. QUIGLEY, Prohibition Agent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
William A. Gray, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
George W. Coles, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Henry Friedman, Asst. U.S Dist. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The petitioner, under a permit duly issued, is authorized to sell liquor at wholesale at premises 226 South street Philadelphia. Upon a search warrant issued by a United States commissioner, the respondent, Andrew A. Quigley, a federal prohibition agent, seized upon the said premises 1,857 cases of wine, 249 barrels of wine, 283 cases of cordials, 425 cases of gin, and a large number of what purported to be vendees' permits to purchase from Lipschutz by various vendees named thereon, under various dates from April, 1921 to May, 1922; also Lipschutz's record book of liquor transactions at the premises. The search warrant was supported by the affidavit of Agent Quigley, setting forth that the liquors and papers were possessed and used in violation of the Volstead Act.
It appears, from Quigley's affidavit and supporting affidavits of others, that on September 26, 1922, Quigley with Connor, another prohibition agent, and Perry, an inspector of customs, visited the premises at 226 South street and examined papers found there, purporting to be permits on form 1410A, authorizing the purchase by vendees named therein of intoxicating liquors. At that time the liquors described in the search warrant were seen by Quigley upon the premises.
Quigley avers that the permits are false and fictitious; that they are not printed upon paper bearing the government water mark; that the serial numbers are not printed in type used upon government forms, and that the names and signatures of the vendees thereon are false, fictitious, and forged; that they were shown to the persons named as vendees, who denied that they were their signatures; that the signature of the Prohibition Director is forged, and the initials 'E.W.T.' of his subordinate authorized to sign his name are forged; that the permits state over Lipschutz's signature that delivery of the liquors named therein was made to persons known to him or properly identified. It is averred that the vendees had never ordered or received the liquors.
The averments of the false and fictitious nature of the permits are supported by the affidavits of other prohibition officials, and the averments of the forgery of signatures is supported by the affidavits of at least 30 persons who are named thereon as vendees. The averment of forgery of the signature of Prohibition Director Davis and of Twaddell is supported by their affidavits. It is also shown that no director's copies of the forged permits have been filed although required by regulation 60 to be filed within 24 hours of sale and delivery; that no carriers' permit numbers appear upon any of the permits; that there were also found upon the premises four vendors' copies of form 1410A, two of which purported to authorize the N. J. Drug Company, 147 South Orange avenue, Newark, N.J., to purchase 250 cases each of whisky, and two of which purported to authorize the same permittee to purchase 250 cases each of brandy; that these permits are false and fictitious; that they are not printed upon government paper, nor identical in type and make-up with government forms of permits; that the name of Prohibition Director Davis is forged thereon, also that of Prohibition Director Brown of New Jersey; that no return was made to the office of the Prohibition Director of New Jersey of such permits as required by the regulations, and that the N. J. Drug Company was not found at the premises in Newark therein named; that all of these permits stated over the signature of I. L. Lipschutz that they were delivered to the N. J. Drug Company, known to him or properly identified; that none of them contained thereon the carrier's permit number; that the manager for Lipschutz at the premises produced as evidence of confirmation of the sales a certain post office registry receipt which it is shown by affidavits, was for a letter addressed to one Alfred Smyth at Atlantic City, N.J.; that three false and fictitious permits purporting to be vendor's copies, dated April 1, 1922, purported to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arregui
...199 Ky. 755, 252 S.W. 105; Blackburn v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 751, 261 S.W. 277; Sutton v. United States, 289 F. 488; Lipschutz v. Quigley, 287 F. 395; Yopp Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 716, 261 S.W. 251; State v. Rice, 73 Mont. 272, 235 P. 716; State v. Quartier, 114 Ore. 657, 236 P. 746; United ......
-
Steckler v. United States, 310.
...be protected under his permit, if it were shown that he was engaged habitually in unlawful sales. We accept the ruling in Lipschutz v. Quigley (D. C.) 287 F. 395. Francis Drug Co. v. Potter (D. C.) 275 F. 615, and In re Alpern et al. (D. C.) 280 F. 432, are to be read as depending upon the ......
-
Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. United States
...that the permit under which the brewing company was operating did not protect it from search under a valid search warrant. Lipschutz v. Quigley (D. C.) 287 F. 395. The next question is raised on the respondent's contention that the search warrant was invalid because it was addressed to, and......
-
United States v. 18 Barrels of Alcohol
...the liquor held was intended for sale. Francis Drug Co. v. Potter (D. C.) 275 F. 615; In re Alpern (D. C.) 280 F. 432. In Lipschutz v. Quigley (D. C.) 287 F. 395, Judge Thompson, in discussing the two cases cited said: "There, for all that appears, there were single unlawful sales, and the ......