Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
THE UNITED STATES v. JOB L. BARBER, 1815 — 13 U.S. 243 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
THE UNITED STATES v. JOB L. BARBER
13 U.S. 2439 Cranch 243·Supreme Court of the United States·1815
,%eilf...,T0DD, J. · Absent....Tódjr J,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THE UNITED STATES v. JOB L. BARBER.
,%eilf...,T0DD, J.
THIS was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Vermont, the opinions of the judgés of which Court were opposed.
Fat'-cattle wc provisions, or ““within the meaning of the juiy, m2, to Pmh;h;t Ar"e" f,.om pr0cee<ijng to or tradenSeraTes ofae linked States,' purpo°eS.ot,'er
Barber was. indicted, «for that he, being a citizen of the United States, and inhabitingtlie same, with1 force and arms, at,” &c. « did attempt to transport, over land thirty head of fat cattle which were then and there articies of provision and munitions of war, and were all of the value of 300 dollars, from a .place in the United States, to wit: from. Berkshire, in the said district of Vermont, to a place in the province of Lower Canada, to wit: to St. Armohs", in the province aforesaid, con-1 trary to the form, force and effect of the ¡statute of the United States, in such case' made and provided,” &c. There was another count in which he was charged with the .actual transportation of them. After a verdict against him,, he obtained a rule to shew cause why judgment should not he arrested, because fát cattle were neither,. provisions nor munitions of war within the meaning oif the act of congress, entitled « an act to prohibit American vessels from proceeding to or .trading with the eneóf the United States, and for other purposes” or any other "act of congress.
By the second section of the act referred to, which was approved on the 8th óf July, Í812, vol. 11, p. 300, it is enacted, « that if any citizen of the, United States, or person inhabiting the. same, shall transport or attempt to transport, over land, .or otherwise,” « naval or military stores, arms' or the munitions of war, or any article of provision, from any place ofthe United States,, ta,any place in Upper or Lower Canada, Nova. Scotia or New Brunswick,”.46 the person or persons aiding or privy to the same shall” “ be considered as guilty of a misdemeanor, apd be liable to be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned for a term1 not exceeding six months, in the discretion of the Court.”
March 7th.
Absent....Tódjr J,
[MAJORITY]
This Court ordered itto be certified to the Circuit Court, that it is the opinion of this Court that fat cattle are provisions, or munitions of war, within the true intent and meaning, of the act, entitled «• an act to prohibit « American vessels from proceeding to or trading with « the enemies of the United States, and for other pur- « poses.”