Chadwell v. United States, 13493.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 13493.,13493. |
| Citation | 260 F.2d 257 |
| Parties | Elmer G. CHADWELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Barksdale, Hudgins & Osborn, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Z. T. Osborn, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., Fred W. Elledge, Jr., and Andrew M. Gant, Jr., U. S. Attys., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and THORNTON, District Judge.
The appellant, and his wife, Lorine Chadwell, were found guilty by a jury in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, on a 3-count indictment charging them with having possession, custody and control of a still and distilling apparatus for the production of alcohol; with carrying on the business of a distillery without legal authority; and with illegally fermenting mash for distillation. The wife was placed on probation and is not a party to this appeal. The appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and his contention here is that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
The conviction of appellant was based upon testimony that was almost completely circumstantial, and is substantially as follows:
That in April of 1956 the appellant owned and lived on a farm on the north side of a country road in Davidson County, Tennessee. Diagonally across the road from his home, and directly across the road from his farm, was a 14 acre tract owned by a Mr. Fred Brewington. This property was sold by Mr. Brewington on April 20, 1956, and he understood that he was selling it to Mr. and Mrs. Chadwell, the defendants below. However, he executed the deed as it was presented to him by his real estate agent, and the proof developed that under this deed Mrs. Chadwell, alone, was the owner of the property. At the time of this sale, the house on the Brewington property was vacant, and a small barn at the rear of the property had not been completed. Between the date of the deed and July 4, 1956, the barn was completed, electricity and water lines were connected to it, the water meter was registered in the name of appellant, and a 900-gallon distillery was moved in and placed in operation. At the time of the trial, nearly a year later, the electric meter was still in the name of appellant, and there was testimony to the effect that the application for the installation of the electric meter had been telephoned in to the company, the company not knowing who made the call....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Whitehead
...appellant's guilt on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Ramsey v. United States, 248 F. 2d 740 (6th Cir. 1957); Chadwell v. United States, 260 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1958). Turning to the constitutional issue, we note that appellant herein did not seek to raise the Fifth Amendment privilege ......
-
McFarland v. United States, 17697.
...for the jury to conclude that the defendant had possession of the unregistered still. Judgment is Affirmed. 1 Chadwell v. United States, 6 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 257; Seawell v. United States, 4 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 909; Spencer v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 5; Carter v. United Sta......
-
Byrd v. United States, 20187.
...F.2d 422; Lovette v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 263; Ramsey v. United States, 6 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 740; Chadwell v. United States, 6 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 257; and Mills v. United States, 4 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d Affirmed. * Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. ...
-
Olson Rug Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 12303.
......v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 12303. United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. November 7, ......