U.S. v. John Lindauer

Summary

U.S. v. John Lindauer is a legal case^[1].

Key Facts

• U.S. v. John Lindauer is in the country of United States^[2].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's image is recorded as John Jacob Lindauer (1840-1888) in U.S. v. John Lindauer in 1869.png^[3].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's instance of is recorded as legal case^[4].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's point in time is recorded as +1869-00-00T00:00:00Z^[5].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's main subject is recorded as Louis Julius Lindauer^[6].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's main subject is recorded as Lindauer criminal organization^[7].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's main subject is recorded as John Jacob Lindauer^[8].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's main subject is recorded as numbers game^[9].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's described at URL is recorded as https://books.google.com/books?id=r5otAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA141^[10].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's defendant is recorded as John Jacob Lindauer^[11].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's judge is recorded as Charles Linnaeus Benedict^[12].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's different from is recorded as U.S. v. Lindauer^[13].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's court is recorded as United States District Court for the Southern District of New York^[14].
• U.S. v. John Lindauer's quotation or excerpt is recorded as Lottery Ticket Dealers. United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Before Judge Benedict and jury. U.S. v. John Lindauer. This was an indictment charging the defendant with doing business as a lottery dealer at No. 202 Chrystie-street, without paying the special tax required by law. From the evidence it did not appear clear whether he was pecuniary interest in the profits and losses of the business. Lewis Lindauer, the brother of the defendant, testified that he (Lewis) paid the rent of the lottery office, and that the defendant merely received wages for his services. On the other hand it was shown that the defendant had made statements to the effect that he had interests in the business. Judge Benedict charged that if the defendant was found to be simply a clerk, he must be acquitted; and further charged that a person might sell lottery tickets on commission, if the commission was allowed as wages, and still be merely a clerk, and not be amenable in the eye of the law as being engaged or concerned in the business of lottery dealing. This construction of the law is very important in view of the great number of arrests of lottery ticket vendors that have recently taken place, nearly all of whom claim to be clerks, and it being extremely difficult to prove who are the principals. The jury, after a brief absence, found the defendant not guilty.^[15].