The appellants based their appeal on asserted errors in the trial court's instructions to the jury.
They rejected the first claim: To read the term "willfully" to require a bad purpose would be to confuse the concept of intent with that of motive.
The statutory requirement of willfulness is satisfied if the accused acted intentionally, with knowledge that he was breaching the statute.They also rejected the second claim.
This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge.
...However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness", and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness.