39 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1930), 5634, Perry v. United States

Docket Nº:5634.
Citation:39 F.2d 52
Party Name:PERRY et al. v. UNITED STATES. [*]
Case Date:March 21, 1930
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 52

39 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1930)

PERRY et al.



No. 5634.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 21, 1930

Page 53

Ion L. Farris, M. H. Myerson, and Jno. W. Dodge, all of Jacksonville, Fla., and Frank L'Engle, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant Satinover.

J. V. Walton, of Palatka, Fla., and H. A. Henderson, of St. Augustine, Fla., for appellant Capo.

W. P. Hughes, U.S. Attorney, of Jacksonville, Fla., and John F. Coldiron, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen.

Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, Charles Perry, Charles L. Miller, J. C. Nichols, Eddie Satinover, Joe Capo, Hans Casperson, and William Odom, were convicted of conspiring to commit an offense against the United States. Error is assigned to the overruling of a demurrer to the indictment.

The indictment, in apt language, charges appellants, together with seventeen other named persons and parties unknown, with conspiring to import and bring into the United States intoxicating liquors containing more than one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume, for beverage purposes, by receiving the said intoxicating liquors, from the cargo of vessels lying on the high seas, off the east coast of Florida, into small boats, and transporting same by means of said small boats from a point on the high seas to a point or points at or near St. Augustine, Fla., and unloading and landing the same. The said acts are charged to be unlawful and prohibited by the provisions of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA) and section 593, subd. (b) of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 497). Four overt acts are alleged to have been committed by some of the conspirators, but neither all of those charged with the conspiracy nor all of those convicted are named as having participated in the overt acts.

It is contended that the indictment fails to charge an offense; that it fails to allege facts sufficient to support the allegation of importing, as it is not alleged the liquor was of foreign manufacture or brought in from a foreign country; that to 'bring in' intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes is not an offense under the National Prohibition Act.

An indictment for conspiracy to commit an offense may allege the object of the conspiracy with less detail than would be necessary in charging the substantive...

To continue reading