Price v. United States, 3628.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 3628.,3628. |
| Citation | 70 F.2d 467 |
| Parties | PRICE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Adam Younce, of Greensboro, N. C. (Geo. A. Younce and Younce & Younce, all of Greensboro, N. C., on the brief), for appellant.
J. R. McCrary, U. S. Atty., of Greensboro, N. C. (Joseph T. Allen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Greensboro, N. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PARKER and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and MEEKINS, District Judge.
Appellant was convicted below of having passed, knowingly and with intent to defraud, certain counterfeit obligations of the United States, and of having had such obligations in his possession with intent to pass them, under section 151 of the Criminal Code (March 4, 1909, c. 321, § 151, 35 Stat. 1116 18 USCA § 265). In the District Court, the appellant's motion for directed verdict was denied, and this appeal raises the question whether there was substantial evidence either to trace the obligations in question into appellant's possession or to prove that his possession, if established, was accompanied by guilty knowledge.
The evidence tended to show the following facts: On July 29, 1933, at about 10 p. m., appellant sent one Knight by automobile to purchase seventy-five gallons of whisky from a bootlegger named Martin, who lived in a neighboring county in Virginia, about sixty-five miles away. Appellant gave Knight a roll of bills, aggregating $67, and 50 cents in silver for the purpose. The whisky was purchased as contemplated, Knight using the money he had been given, which, according to witnesses to the transaction, consisted of six new $10 bills and seven $1 bills. The counterfeit bills introduced in evidence were six new bills purporting to be $10 Federal Reserve notes, issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Martin testified that they resembled the bills he received from Knight. Martin folded the money received, put a rubber band around it, and kept it in his pocketbook, until he used it to purchase goods from his brother a few days later. The brother deposited the bills in a bank the next day, in an aggregate deposit of $817 in bills, and although the whole amount was sorted and placed in the till, an examination was at once made and it was found that six new $10 bills in the deposit were counterfeit. They were returned to Martin's brother, who thought they looked like the bills Martin had given him. He returned them to Martin who gave him $60 in good money for them, and turned them over to a secret service agent.
Shortly after the bills were discovered to be counterfeit, Martin made a trip to appellant's home in search of Knight, and informed appellant of the discovery. Appellant merely said he would tell Knight about it. The next Saturday Martin again went to appellant's home, this time with the secret service agent, Shepherd. Appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Browning
...1 United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 613, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United States v. Brown, 348 F.2d 661 (2d Cir. 1965). 2 Price v. United States, 70 F.2d 467 (4th Cir. 1934); United States v. King, 326 F.2d 415 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 1637, 12 L.Ed.2d 500; United State......
-
United States v. Releford, 16078.
...money. While proof of the passing of such notes does not by itself give rise to an inference of guilty knowledge Price v. United States, 70 F.2d 467, 468 (C.A.4, 1934); United States v. Litberg, 175 F.2d 20 (C.A.7, 1949), and guilty knowledge is an essential element of the charged crime, Un......
-
Marson v. United States, 11617.
...naked act of possessing and passing counterfeit money does not give rise to a legitimate inference of guilty knowledge. Price v. United States, 4 Cir., 70 F.2d 467. Knowledge or belief of the counterfeit character of the money is an essential element of the crime of passing counterfeit mone......
- Green v. Finnigan Realty Co.