Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. United States, 10325.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 10325.,10325. |
| Citation | 133 F.2d 449 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN ADVANCE BAG & PAPER CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. F. Madison, Jr., of Monroe, La., and Esmond Phelps, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, U. S. Atty., and John A. Patin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
On trial before a jury, Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., Inc., was found guilty on counts 3, 4, and 5 of a twelve count indictment which in the words of the statute charged it and three of its officers with violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., §§ 215(a) (1), 216(a). Having heard and denied motions of the Company to set aside the verdict, in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, the Court fined the Company $3,000 on count 3 and suspended imposition of sentence on the other two counts. From the judgment thus entered this appeal was taken by the Company.
At its plant in Advance, Louisiana, Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., Inc., was engaged in manufacturing and shipping in interstate commerce paper and paper bags made from pulpwood, the principal ingredient of paper. Approximately 15% of the pulpwood used in the manufacture of paper at this plant was produced by the Company itself, and the other 85% was purchased from other producers. Much of the wood purchased by the Company from independent producers was produced in violation of the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In substance the charges embodied in counts 3, 4, and 5 of the indictment are that Southern Advance purchased pulpwood from producers, knowing that such producers had paid their employees less than the lawful minimum wage, and had manufactured paper from such illegally produced pulpwood and had shipped it in interstate commerce.
From the testimony given by producers and their employees it is clear indeed that much of the pulpwood purchased by Southern Advance was produced in violation of the Act, and that cutters, haulers, and helpers were paid wages substantially lower than those required by law; that is, less than 25¢ per hour prior to October 24, 1939, and less than 30¢ per hour thereafter.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that the evidence fails to show that it had knowledge of the fact that producers who were selling pulpwood to it were not complying with the provisions of the Act. Shortly after the Act became effective, a committee of producers met with Charles Kelley, General Manager of the Company, and asked for an increase in pulpwood prices, and informed him that with prevailing prices they were not complying and were unable to comply with the minimum wage requirements of the Act. The committee had several other interviews with Kelley, and there is evidence that other officers of the Company, Hunt and Lewis, and a bookkeeper, Porteous, knew that producers were paying their employees substandard wages.
Three shipments of paper are involved in counts 3, 4, and 5 under which Southern Advance was convicted. The defendant asserts that the evidence fails to show that these particular shipments contained pulpwood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Jaffe
...Drilling Co. v. Hall, 1942, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83, affirming 5 Cir., 1941, 124 F.2d 42; Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 449; Fleming v. Enterprise Box Co., D.C.S.D.Fla., 1941, 37 F.Supp. 331, affirmed, 5 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 897, ce......
-
Magnolia Motor & Logging Company v. United States
...Corp., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 376; American Medical Ass'n v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 130 F.2d 233; Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 449. 12 See cases cited in footnote 11. See also Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356; Borum......
-
Mitchell v. Raines, 15977.
...Schulte v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 90 L.Ed. 1114; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, supra; Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 449; Fleming v. Enterprise Box Co., D.C.S.D.Fla., 37 F.Supp. 331, affirmed 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 897, certiorari denied En......
-
Dickenson v. United States
...v. Montague, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 500. There appears no reason for limiting this rule in criminal cases. Compare Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 449 (Government not required to show, in a criminal case, which particular pieces of pulpwood, which were made int......