Beavers v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4169.,4169. |
| Citation | 3 F.2d 860 |
| Parties | BEAVERS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Thomas J. Walsh and A. E. Weinstein, both of Memphis, Tenn. (A. B. Galloway and Ernest S. Bell, both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
W. H. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn. (S. E. Murray, U. S. Atty., and A. A. Hornsby, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DONAHUE, MACK, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
DONAHUE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The motion for a directed verdict was properly overruled, for the reason that the government offered substantial evidence tending to prove each and every material allegation of the indictment. This court has no authority to determine the weight of the evidence.
It is insisted, however, that there is a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the evidence, in that the indictment charges that this interstate freight was shipped by Duke & Co. from Durham, N. C., and the evidence offered in support of this allegation relates to shipments made by W. B. Duke Sons & Co., Inc., of Durham, N. C., a branch of the Liggett-Meyers Tobacco Company. The gravamen of the offense is the breaking of the seal and stealing from a car containing freight then being transported in interstate commerce. The consignor is named in the indictment for the purpose of informing the defendant of the charge against him, and to protect him against another prosecution for the same offense. Bennett v. U. S., 194 F. 630, 114 C. C. A. 402, affirmed Bennett v. U. S., 227 U. S. 333, 338, 33 S. Ct. 288, 57 L. Ed. 531.
There is no conflict in the evidence as to the identity of the consignor, regardless of the several names by which it is known. The government introduced substantial evidence tending to prove that W. B. Duke Sons & Co. is also known and designated in Durham, N. C., as "Dukes" and "the Duke Company"; that no other person, firm, or corporation of that name is, or was at that time, shipping goods from that point; and that W. B. Duke Sons & Co. and the consignor named in the indictment as "the Duke Company" are one and the same corporate entity. Bennett v. U. S., supra; Putnam v. U. S., 162 U. S. 687, 690, 16 S. Ct. 923, 40 L. Ed. 1118.
It is further claimed that the court erred in admitting the evidence of certain employés of the railroad company in reference to waybills covering these interstate shipments of freight, for the reason that these witnesses had not made these waybills and could not testify that they were the original waybills made at point of shipment. These witnesses, however, did testify that these waybills came to them through the regular channels, that they checked the same with these interstate shipments, and that they fully covered the same. Later the government called as witnesses employés of the initial carrier at Durham, N. C., who testified that these were the original waybills, made in the usual course of business and transmitted in the usual way to the employés of the carrier or carriers having duties to perform in connection therewith. As a rule the testimony of no one witness can cover the entire transaction. For this reason a witness may be permitted to testify as to any relevant fact or facts within his knowledge, and his testimony in reference thereto is admissible if, before the government closes its case, it is shown by competent evidence that the facts in relation to which the witness has testified are part and parcel of the same transaction that constitutes in part or in whole the offense charged in the indictment. Otherwise his evidence should be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. While it is perhaps the better practice to prove these facts in sequence, nevertheless the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanley
...State v. Campbell, 150 S.C. 449, 148 S.E. 472; People v. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484, 35 N.E. 951, 23 L.R.A. 830, 37 Am.St.Rep. 572; Beavers v. U.S., 6 Cir., 3 F.2d 860. Id. at 431. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico inculcated: Defendant's assertion that the trial judge's comments resu......
-
Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
...U.S. 134; Swift v. Short, 92 F. 567; Hays v. Tacoma R. & P. Co. (Wash.), 106 F. 48; Tacoma Pl. & P. Co. v. Hays, 110 F. 496; Beavers v. United States, 3 F.2d 860, l. c. 863; Sneed v. United States (5th Cir.), 298 F. 911. (3) It is proper to offer impeaching statements in evidence. Beier v. ......
-
Continental Baking Company v. United States
...Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 397, 402, affirmed 1959, 360 U.S. 395, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323; Beavers v. United States, 6 Cir., 1925, 3 F.2d 860, 863. It is well-settled in this Court that a conviction may be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Poliafi......
-
Ercoli v. United States, 8192.
...Camp v. United States, 56 App.D.C. 119, 10 F.2d 984; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U.S. 552, 21 S.Ct. 474, 45 L.Ed. 663. 4 Beavers v. United States, 6 Cir., 3 F. 2d 860, 862; Gladstone v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F. 117, certiorari denied 247 U.S. 521, 38 S.Ct. 582, 62 L.Ed. 1246; Smith v. Un......