Bacigalupi v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 August 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3664. |
| Citation | 274 F. 367 |
| Parties | BACIGALUPI v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Nathan C. Coghlan, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Frank M. Silva, U.S. Atty., and W. H. Tully, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was found guilty and sentenced under four counts of an indictment. The first two counts are similar. They charge that the defendant did violate the requirements of the Act of December 17, 1914 (Comp. St. Secs. 6287g- 6287q), as amended February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1130 (Comp St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 6287g, 6287l)), in that, being a person required to register under the terms of said act, he did then and there unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly have in his possession, with intent to sell, a certain derivative of coca leaves, to wit, eight bindles of cocaine hydrochloride, 13 grains each, etc., without having registered with the collector of internal revenue, and without having paid the special tax required by law. The third and fourth counts charge the violation of said act and the amendment thereof, in that, being a person required to register under the terms of said act, he did unlawfully willfully, and knowingly sell, dispense, and distribute a certain derivative of opium, to wit, six grains of morphine which morphine was not then and there in original stamped packages, nor was it taken from original stamped packages. A demurrer to each count of the indictment was overruled, and the grounds of the demurrer were subsequently presented in a motion in arrest of judgment, which was likewise overruled.
The plaintiff in error contends that each count of the indictment is fatally defective, in that it fails to show that the defendant was a person required to register under the act, in that it contains no allegation that he was one of the persons who 'import, manufacture, produce, compound, sell, deal in, dispense or give away opium,' etc.
The first two counts of the indictment charge that the defendant had in his possession 'with intent to sell' the derivatives of coca leaves and the derivatives of opium described therein. Whether it is sufficiently alleged therein that the defendant was one of the classes of persons who were required to register under the terms of the act we need not pause to consider. The third and fourth counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CM Spring Drug Co. v. United States
...Kalen v. United States (C. C. A.) 196 F. 888 (9th Cir.); Wetzel v. United States (C. C. A.) 233 F. 984 (9th Cir.); Bacigalupi v. United States (C. C. A.) 274 F. 367 (9th Cir.). In Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S. 239, 252, 40 S. Ct. 205, 210 (64 L. Ed. 542), the court said: "The conceded ......
-
Stubbs v. United States
...stamped package, unlawful, it imposes no penalty. The objection is without merit. Dean v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 266 F. 694; Bacigalupi v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 274 F. 367; Montague v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 277; and U. S. v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18, 43 S. Ct. 7, 67 L. Ed. The second count is in the ......
-
Watson v. United States
...a public offense, in that it does not charge that defendant is a person required to register under the Narcotic Act. In Bacigalupi v. United States (C. C. A.) 274 F. 367, this court held that an allegation in an indictment under this statute, charging that the defendant unlawfully, willfull......
-
Casey v. United States
...of tax is required, the necessary implication of the allegations is that he was within such class. We so held in Bacigalupi v. United States (C. C. A.) 274 F. 367. Upon the second count the evidence, though conflicting, is ample to support the As to the first count, to establish the charge ......