HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0475 and id is 1 raw text is: c ]ARTEMEYER V. IOWA.
Syllabus.
whether the facts disclosed therein required a stamp to be
affixed to the draft or not. To decide the question proposed,
therefore, would avail nothing. An imperfect verdict, or
one on which no judgment can be rendered, must be set
aside, and a venire de novo awarded.* The case must there-
fore be dismissed.
It is proper to observe that in the case of United States v.
Ishan,t recently decided by this court, we held that no
stamp is required on drafts of the kind above described,
when not exceeding ten dollars in amount.
CASE DISMISSED.
BARTEMEYER V. IOWA.
1. The usual and ordinary legislation of the States regulating or prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquors raises no question under the Constitution
of the United States prior to the fourteenth amendment of that instru-
ment.
2. The right to sell intoxicating liquors is not one of the privileges and im-
munities of citizens of the United States which by that amendment the
States were forbidden to abridge.
8. But if a case were presented in which a person owning liquor or other
property at the time a law was passed by the State absolutely prohibit-
ing any sale of it, it would be a very grave question whether such a law
would not be inconsistent with the provision of that amendment which
forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due course of law.
4. While the case before the court attempted to present that question, it
failed to do it, because the plea, which is taken as true, did not state, in
due form and by positive allegation, the time when the defendant be-
came the owner of the liquor sold; and, secondly, because the record
satisfied the court that this was a moot case, made up to obtain the
opinion of this court on a grave constitutional question, without the
existence of the facts necessary to raise that question.
5. In such a case, where the Supreme Court of the State to which the writ
of error is directed has not considered the question, this court will not
feel at liberty to go out of its usual course to decide it.
Bacon's Abridgment, title Verdict (M.) ; Tidd's Practice, 922, 9th
ed. ; Holland v. Fisher, Orlando Bridgman, 187, 188.
t 17 Wallace, 496. [The case had not been decided when the plesent one
was argued.-REP.]
VOL. XVIII.
Oct. 1873.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0475&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)