*1 AMERICAN N. v. EXPRESS CO. OF Y. KENTUCKY. 139 206 U. S. Counsel for Parties.
substantially the same. There was the same in averment indictment; and more than that, there was an express stipu- lation made between counsel the trial pending these words:
“It is further at this agreed point about whiskey' witness testified was delivered the Adams Ex- by Jhe and received it in its press Company by office in Cincinnati the usual course of business as a common .in carried to' Barbourville, it method Kentucky, by the commonly C. D.”O. known.as therefore,
There this case in nothing, principle and- the same will this,as be entered that. 141,
Mr. dissented. See p. post. Harlan COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. Argued 18, 1907. April 17, No. 583. 1907. Decided TO THE COltRT OF ERROR APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. authority Company Express of Adams Kentucky, ante, p. Decided v. 129.. facts are stated the opinion. n Maxwell, Mr. Jr., Lawrence and Mr. Edmund F. Trabue, wa,s Mr. Graydon with whom S. Joseph brief, for plaintiffs -in-error.1 Napoleon B. General of Hays,
Mr. Morris, whom Mr. Charles Kentucky, with H. was on the brief, for defendant error.1 arguments ante, p. For abstracts of seq. see 131 et TERM, OCTOBER 1906.
Opinion of the Court. Justice Brewer delivered of the court. *2 This like the two was a of the case, prosecution for a violation of Kentucky statute express company the D.” to “C. It was tried in the Circuit respect shipments. O. which a Court a returned and jury, verdict of guilty before fixed the at one penalty hundred dollars which verdict fine, was sustained and entered thereon the Cir- cuit Court. The to company the of appealed Court Appeals, which affirmed the 97 S. W. judgment, Rep. Ky. Law 207, and the case Reporter, thereupon was brought here of writ error. testified did that he not consignee an order for give
the shipment, testimony while there.was on behalf of the an that such order was filed with consignor it in the name of the and the made consignee shipment that order. upon The brief of the General the of Court Appeals, to the a testimony after witness on referring of behalf .of said: company,
“It will from his evidence that appear he resides Cincin- nati, and is for a firm Ohio, manager wholesale liquor located in said that March city; 21st, 1905, he received order an an Exhibit ‘X’ from Richard 'filed as Graham of Hodgens- ville, for an of to be Ky., whiskey order sent C. D.,O. for the delivery of warrant herein was issued against the this appellant upon order the company; whiskey in to was said at question Graham shipped Hodgensville, Ky., and delivered to him and the therefor to charges paid ap- who returned pellant company, the same to the said or house firm Cincinnati, Ohio. There is no to show that proof the. express had company any or as to the knowledge information contents of said so and is package delivered, to any notice to it of of said the contents whatever package. 4U if* ^ V ^
“We, desire however, to pass upon question, N. Y. v. OF CO. J., dissenting. in order that the many complications out of growing transac- tions similar this to may simplified, the multitude of out litigations of the growing same lessened, whether or not a similar to the can appellant legally whiskey for into a shipped local option district con- to thus trary constitute itself a for one collecting agency who .under the shield of interstate commerce protected .such, into permitted ship whiskey districts. We are of that an express company has no inherent right finder the laws or under the protection of inter- state commerce assume a duty not required it,of as a com- mon and 'to do that which is in violation of the laws of this State. Because we believe that this record its pres- *3 ent does not show shape that the appeal the police from Circuit Court of Larue County was properly le- taken, and for the further gally reason that the express com- has no violation- pany right,
a local district of whiskey option C. shipped O. we ask D., that’ judgment affirmed.”
In view of the concession and contention of the Attorney General we are of the opinion to sub- from stantially case The same preceding. will be judgment, therefore, rendered in this case as in those. dissenting. , I do not think that these are cases of legitimate interstate only commerce. devices or tricks They by the express to evade or defeat the laws of Kentucky relating to the sale of vinous or spirituous, malt liquors. I dissent each case.