Jones v. United States

Citation289 F. 536
Decision Date07 May 1923
Docket Number3880.
PartiesJONES v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Submitted February 6, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

T Morris Wampler, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and J. J. O'Leary, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and MARTIN Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

MARTIN Acting Associate Justice.

The defendant, now the appellant, was indicted jointly with one Roberts upon the charge of stealing an automobile and certain tires, tubes, and a battery belonging to it. The defendant pleaded not guilty and went to trial. Roberts, his codefendant, pleaded guilty and became a witness for the prosecution.

The first witness at the trial was the owner of the automobile who testified in substance that it was stolen on a certain evening in February, 1920, when he had left it parked upon a street in the city of Washington, and that when it was recovered the tires, tubes, and battery were missing. The next witness was Roberts, who testified in substance that on the evening in question he and the defendant were together in a car which the witness had borrowed from a man named Patterson; that they were touring about, looking for a car to steal, when they noticed the one in question, and saw that it was equipped with new tires; that they then decided to steal the tires; that accordingly the witness entered the car and drove it over to Arlington, leaving the defendant to follow in the borrowed car; that after meeting there according to their agreement they took the tires, tubes, and battery from the car, and drove away, leaving it standing in or near the Arlington road; that they left the stolen articles in a garage that night; that the next morning the defendant met the witness at his hotel, and, after putting two of the stolen tires on the borrowed car, they sold the other three tires and the battery at Baum's second-hand shop; that defendant transacted the sale. The witness admitted that he had pleaded guilty to another indictment for grand larceny in the District, as well as this one. No punishment had been imposed upon him, his case having been referred to the probation officers.

The next witness was Baum, who testified that he was in the automobile business; that in the early part of March 1920, he bought some tires and a battery from the defendant and Roberts, 'and another young fellow'; that they were together and he could not recall which one he had paid the money to; that they were at his place on two occasions; that the witness had known the defendant before that time but had not known Roberts; that when the defendant came to his place of business he gave his right name and also introduced Roberts to him under his right name of Roberts. The tires were identified as the stolen ones.

Several police officers testified to finding the automobile near the road in Virginia, and Patterson testified that he had loaned Roberts his car, and given him the privilege of using his garage, at and about the time in question.

The defendant testified, stating that he was in the automobile business, denying in substance that he was with Roberts upon the evening in question, or had any part at all in taking the car or other property, or that he was present when they were stolen; that he had known Roberts for some time and was told by him that he had some tires for sale; some old ones which he did not need upon his Studebaker; that the defendant told him of Baum as a man who would buy them, and defendant at Robert's request met him there and introduced him to Baum; that Roberts then sold a battery and two or three tires which he had brought with him in a car; that Roberts did not tell the defendant where he got the tires and the battery, but defendant supposed they came off of his car, the defendant, however, at another time saying that Roberts told him that they had come off of the Patterson car; that no money or anything of value was given to defendant at Baum's shop, but the money was given to Roberts.

Thereupon George O. Talbert was called as a witness by defendant and testified as follows:

'That he is sales manager for the John Hill Company handling batteries, lives in Washington, and has lived here for 20 years; has known defendant for about 10 years; knows other people in the community who know him, many of them; knows his general reputation for honesty and integrity and fair dealing, and that it is of the best; that the witness has never heard anyone say anything against him.'

The defendant's counsel in due time moved the court to give the following instruction to the jury, to wit:

'The jury are instructed that the circumstances of a case may be such that an established reputation for good character would alone create a reasonable doubt,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1946
    ...Arnold v. United States, 10 Cir., 94 F.2d 499, 501, 508; cf. Nanfito v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 376, 379; Jones v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 138, 289 F. 536, 539. 10 See also Venable v. State, 84 Tex. Cr.R. 354, 207 S.W. 520; Campbell, J., in People v. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N.W. 66......
  • Kinard v. United States, 6969.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 7, 1938
    ...evidence of good character under particular circumstances may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of guilt. Jones v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 138, 289 F. 536; Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361, 366, 17 S.Ct. 72, 41 L.Ed. 467; Egan v. United States, 52 App.D.C. 384, 287 F. 95......
  • McAffee v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 28, 1939
    ...and fairly covered by the general charge of the court or by other instructions of either party given by the court. Jones v. United States, 1923, 53 App.D.C. 138, 289 F. 536; People v. Williamson, 1907, 6 Cal.App. 336, 92 P. 313; Commonwealth v. Maddocks, 1910, 207 Mass. 152, 93 N.E. 253; St......
  • State v. Surbaugh, 11–0561.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 20, 2012
    ...United States, 265 F. 489 (7th Cir.1920);Egan v. United States, 52 App.D.C. 384, 287 F. 958 (1923);Jones v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 138, 289 F. 536 (1923);Arnstein v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 199, 296 F. 946 (1924). On the other hand in Allen v. United States, 4 F.2d 688, at pages 694 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT