Lawrence v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 4608.,4608.
• Citation: 56 F.2d 555
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

56 F.2d 555 (1932)

LAWRENCE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4608.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 6, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1932.

Charles J. Trainor, Edwin W. Sims, Franklin J. Stransky, and Walter Brewer, all of Chicago, Ill., and Cassius Poust, of Sycamore, Ill., for appellant.

Paul F. Jones, U. S. Atty., of Danville, Ill., and J. Fred Gilster, Asst. U. S. Atty., of East St. Louis, Ill.

Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

SPARKS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The errors assigned and relied upon are eleven in number. The first two relate to admission of government's evidence and refusal to admit evidence on behalf of appellant. The sixth assignment complains of rulings of the court which deprived appellant of having a fair and impartial trial. These assignments of error do not inform us, either by quotation or page reference, as to what particular evidence is objectionable to him, or what rulings of the court prevented a fair trial. Under rule 10 of this court, therefore, there is no question presented by such assignments.

The third and eighth assignments charge error in not granting a new trial; but in these we think there was no abuse of the court's discretion.

Assignments 4 and 5 question the court's rulings in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant at the close of government's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence.

Assignment 7 alleges that there is no evidence to support the verdict, and further alleges that the verdict is contrary to law and also contrary to the instructions of the court.

The evidence is somewhat voluminous, and we think no good purpose would be served by setting forth its content. A perusal of the entire record convinces us that there was no error with respect to the matters referred to in the three assignments last mentioned. The facts that appellant had so many stolen automobiles in his possession during the time covered by the evidence, and that the motor numbers had been changed on so many of the cars, and such changes were quite apparent to a person of appellant's experience, and that appellant secured these stolen cars from the same parties, who lived in South Bend, Ind., and whose place of business, to say the least, was not of the most wholesome character, and that the car referred to in counts 1 and 2 was a car stolen from South Bend, and was purchased by appellant at Indiana Harbor from the same parties last referred to and transported from Indiana to Illinois, and was stored, bartered, and sold by appellant — were quite sufficient, in conjunction with all other evidence submitted, to warrant the court in submitting the case to the jury under counts 1, 2, and 5. The jury having found appellant guilty under these charges, we cannot disturb the verdict under these assignments.

Assignment 9 is based on the court's ruling on appellant's motion in arrest of judgment. There being no apparent error on the face of the record which would prevent the rendition of judgment, and...