Pattis v. United States
Decision Date | 21 February 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 4880.,4880. |
Citation | 17 F.2d 562 |
Parties | PATTIS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. H. Peterson and T. C. Coffin, both of Pocatello, Idaho, for plaintiff in error.
H. E. Ray, U. S. Atty., W. H. Langroise and Sam S. Griffin, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho.
Before MORROW and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
On March 17, 1926, defendant, together with Dors Jensen, Clyde Clark (alias John Fuchs), and Paul Parker, was charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, in violation of section 37, federal Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10201). The first count of the indictment was as follows:
The second count of the indictment was in similar language, but charged a conspiracy to feloniously possess certain "property designed and intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor," with intent to use such property in such manufacture. The third count charged conspiracy to sell the intoxicating liquor so manufactured. The fourth count charged actual possession of the "property designed and intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor." The fifth count charged the maintenance of a nuisance at the George Goodenough ranch.
Jensen and Clark pleaded guilty, and Parker not having been apprehended, defendant was tried alone. Jensen and Clark testified, on behalf of the government, that this defendant was one of the owners of the Tom Cacavas Grocery Company in Pocatello, Idaho; that Jensen and Clark had determined upon making moonshine whisky at a location about 21 miles south of Pocatello, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacobs v. Danciger
...illegal. Sec. 18, Title II, National Prohibition Act, U. S. C., title 27, sec. 30; Weinstein v. United States, 293 F. 388; Pattis v. United States, 17 F.2d 562; Anstess United States, 22 F.2d 594; Massei v. United States, 295 F. 683; Reynolds v. United States, 282 F. 256. (c) Under the Crim......
-
Snead v. United States
...to make the sale. This is the view taken of the matter in a number of well considered cases in the federal courts. Pattis v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 562; Vukich v. United States, 9 Cir., 28 F.2d 666, 669; Borgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 550, 555; Anstess v. United States, 7 ......
-
United States v. Harrison
...281 F. 516, certiorari denied, 260 U.S. 734, 43 S.Ct. 95, 67 L. Ed. 487; Simpson v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 591; Pattis v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 562, noted in Criminal Law — Conspiracy — One Who Knowingly Assists Others to Accomplish Object of A Conspiracy Is Co-conspirator,......
-
United States v. Falcone
...of the decision below with those of Courts of Appeals in other circuits. Simpson v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 591; Pattis v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 562; Borgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 550; Marino v. United States, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 691, 113 A.L.R. 975; see Backun v. Uni......