Barton v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 August 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1797. |
| Parties | BARTON et al v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
P. A Bonham, of Greenville, S.C. (Bonham & Price, of Greenville S.C., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
J William Thurmond, U.S. Atty., of Edgefield, S.C. (C. G Wyche, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Greenville, S.C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.
The plaintiffs in error, defendants below, were indicted in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of South Carolina for a violation of sections 3258, 3279, and 3281, R.S. (Comp. St. Secs. 5994, 6019, 6021). They were tried before a jury at the October term, 1919, at Greenville, S.C., and convicted upon all the counts of the indictment.
When the illicit distillery was found by the officers, according to the testimony, it was ready for operation. No one was then there present, but the officers concealed themselves and laid in wait with the purpose of apprehending whoever came to operate it. In a short time, three persons (the plaintiffs in error and another person) came to the distillery, and, according to the officers, had a conversation among themselves as to whether the beer was ready to be run or distilled, and which tub of beer they would first run. The officers then rushed in and caught all three of the men.
At the trial, the presiding judge charged the jury that, if they concluded that the plaintiffs in error were at the time at the place where they were alleged to have been caught, and that it was at a distillery, as set out in the indictment, that that would be a suspicious circumstance, and would demand some explanation of the plaintiffs in error, either from the facts testified to by the witnesses for the government, or upon their own part.
The presiding judge, upon an exception to this charge, further charged the jury that, in the absence of some explanation of why the prisoners were there, either from the testimony for the government, or the surrounding circumstances, or their own testimony, when one is found at an illicit distillery, it becomes incumbent upon him to give some explanation of his presence there.
It is upon an assignment for this charge as error that the case is now before this court.
An illicit distillery is a business or operation wholly prohibited by law. As in the case of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Gainey, 13
...could be considered by them in determining whether the defendant had participated in carrying on the illegal operation. Barton v. United States, 267 F. 174, 175 176 (C.A.4th Cir.). Compare Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090. The Fourth Circuit had endorsed su......
-
Vick v. United States
...for new trial, and denied those motions in reliance on two cases, Icenhour v. United States, 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 663, and Barton v. United States, 4 Cir., 267 F. 174.1 In Icenhour v. United States, supra, 187 F.2d at page 664, this Court "Three witnesses for the government positively identifie......
-
State v. Giordano
...stolen raises the presumption of guilty knowledge. Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090; Barton v. United States (C.C.A. [4 Cir.]) 267 F. 174." Sellers v. United States, 4 Cir., 299 F. 258, We can only conclude, however, that the charge of the court was prejudi......
-
Weisman v. United States
...holding that, under the circumstances, what might be deemed recent possession was a fact question for the jury. In Barton v. United States (C. C. A.) 267 F. 174, 175, the question arose as to possession of an illicit still. The defendant was found at or near the still, and the court said: "......