Baldwin v. United States

• Decision Date: 22 January 1917
• Docket Number: 2923.
• Citation: 238 F. 793
• Parties: BALDWIN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

238 F. 793

BALDWIN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 2923.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 22, 1917

A. S Baskett, of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff in error.

Jas. C Wilson, U.S. Atty., and Wm. E. Allen, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Dallas, Tex.

Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case was submitted to the jury on the first, second, seventh eighth, and ninth counts of the indictment, each of which undertook to charge the commission by the defendant of an offense denounced by the Drug Registration Act of December 17, 1914. 38 Stat.L. 785. We must treat that statute as a valid revenue measure. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36 Sup.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061. We are not of opinion that either of the counts mentioned was subject to be quashed on the grounds stated in the motion made to that end by the defendant. The ninth count sufficiently charged that the defendant did, on or about the 5th day of August, A.D. 1915, unlawfully and knowingly sell barter, exchange, and give away to one Thelma Jones--

'about 60 grains of morphine, the exact amount being to the grand jurors unknown, and the same being then and there a derivative of opium, and without theretofore having registered and paid the special tax, as is required by an act of Congress, approved December 17, A.D. 1914, of any and all persons so dealing in, selling, bartering, and giving away such narcotic drugs, as aforesaid.'

An exception was reserved to the refusal of the court to give the following written charge, requested by the defendant:

'Under the ninth count in the indictment you are charged that said count charges that the acts and things therein complained of were done by the defendant without having registered and paid the special tax required by the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act of Congress, and the undisputed evidence shows that at said time the defendant had duly registered and paid said special tax. You will therefore find the defendant 'not guilty' under said ninth count in the indictment.'

The form of this charge is such that it was calculated to convey to the jury the idea that it was incumbent on them to make and return a separate finding on the count mentioned. Where there are several counts before the jury, it is not incumbent on the court to require a finding on one of the counts specifically. A proper verdict of guilty on any count on which the case...