United States v. L. Cohen Grocer Co.
Citation | 264 F. 218 |
Decision Date | 08 April 1920 |
Docket Number | 7283. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. L. COHEN GROCER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Vance J. Higgs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Chester H. Krum and Louis B. Sher, both of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
The defendant, a corporation under the laws of the state of Missouri, stands indicted in this court in two counts under the amendment of October 22, 1919, of the Act of August 10 1917. To this indictment, and to both of the counts thereof defendant demurs, for that both the indictment, which follows the language of the amendment, supra, and the amendment itself, are insufficient to inform it of the nature and cause of the accusation against it, and, therefore, that both such indictment and the amendment itself are violative of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The language of the statute which attempts to create the crime charged against defendant, so far as that language is pertinent to the specific charge against this defendant reads thus:
'Section 2, c. 80, 41 Stat. 298. Amendment of Oct. 22, 1919, to the Lever Act.
Following the language of the above statute, the indictment charges that defendant 'did willfully and feloniously make an unjust and unreasonable rate and charge in handling and dealing in a certain necessary, to wit, sugar,' and thereupon the indictment proceeds to aver the facts of the alleged sale of sugar, in that it sets forth the date of the purchase, the name of the purchaser to whom said sugar was sold by defendant, the amount of sugar sold, and the price charged such purchaser therefor, and concludes by averring:
Shortly before this, in a trial in this court upon a similar indictment against this defendant, at the close of the case, and upon a demurrer ore tenus, bottomed upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to convict, I took occasion in an oral charge to say to the jury this:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Meyer
...are so indefinite as to leave the standard of guilt to the variant views of different juries. Compare United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., D.C. E.D.Mo.1920, 264 F. 218, 220, affirmed 1921, 255 U.S. 81, see pages 89, et seq., 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516. Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Crimi......
-
Ex parte Taft v. Shaw
...v. Cohen Grocery Co., decided by our late companion, Judge Faris, now of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. See 264 F. 218, where former brother, in his usual forceful language, in discussing the Lever Act, supra, said: "The definitions, boundaries, and limits of ......
-
Lamborn v. McAvoy
...265 F. 944 LAMBORN et al. v. McAVOY, U.S. Atty., et al. No. 2043.United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.June 9, 1920 ... Wm ... District of Missouri, in the case of United States v ... Cohen Grocer Co., 264 F. 218; by Judge Tuttle, of the ... Eastern District of ... ...
-
Juvenile, In re
...255 U.S. 81, at pp. 89-93, 41 S.Ct. 298. Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co. (D.C.E.D.Mo.E.D. 1920), 264 F. 218, 220, affirmed (1921), 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 'Moral turpitude' is not defined by statute and is pure......