Bechtold v. United States
| Citation | 276 F. 816 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3754. |
| Parties | BECHTOLD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Frank A. Lenz, of Butte, Mont., for plaintiff in error.
John L Slattery, U.S. Atty., and Ronald Higgins and Wellington H Meigs, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Helena, Mont.
Before GILBERT, MORROW, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
This is a proceeding to review dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus. Bechtold set up that he was convicted under three counts of an indictment, charging: (1) That on July 12 1920, he made and fermented a certain mash fit for the production of spirits in a certain building other than a distillery duly authorized according to law, and on premises other than a distillery duly authorized according to law; (2) that on July 12, 1920, he failed and neglected to register with the collector of internal revenue a still then in his possession and under his control, which still was set up; (3) that on July 12, 1920, he carried on the business of a distiller without first having given the bond required by law and complied with the provisions relating to registration. Petitioner does not specify the particular statutes under which the conviction was had, nor does the indictment, nor do the judgment and commitment; but it is evident that the offenses are defined in sections 3282, 3258, and 3281 of the internal revenue laws, title 35, R.S.U.S. (Comp. St. Sec. 5994, 6021, 6022). The sentence was imprisonment in the county jail at Butte, Mont., for nine months and to pay a fine of $500.
The contention is that the above-cited sections of the Revised States were repealed by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the act of Congress, known as the National Prohibition Act, approved October 28, 1919, chapter 85, 41 Stat. 305. The record fails to show that defendant below, by demurrer or otherwise, tested the sufficiency of the indictment at the time of trial, or that he filed a motion in arrest of judgment, or in any other way in the District Court questioned the legality of his conviction, or sought writ of error to review the judgment against him. He is now endeavoring by this proceeding to have this court decide a question of law, which he should have raised in the District Court at the time of trial or judgment, and which, if decided adversely to him, might have been presented to this court by writ of error.
Whether the indictment was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sander v. Johnston
...has held that this contention is unavailable on habeas corpus. Erickson v. Hodges, 179 F. 177, 180, 181, 102 C. C. A. 443; Bechtold v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 276 F. 816. The decisions of the Supreme Court are to the same effect. Glasgow v. Moyer, 32 S. Ct. 753, 225 U. S. 420, 428, 429, 56 L. Ed. ......
-
Ex parte Rumsey
...291 F. 671 Ex parte RUMSEY. No. 2403.United States District Court, D. Kansas, First Division.February 8, 1923 ... Newton ... C ... 54, 59 L.Ed. 203; McMicking v. Shields, 238 ... U.S. 99, 35 Sup.Ct. 665, 59 L.Ed. 1220; Bechtold v. U.S ... (C.C.A.) 276 F. 816 ... It ... follows the question attempted to be here ... ...
-
Littleton v. United States
...L. Ed. 513; Stallings v. Splain, 253 U. S. 339, 344, 40 S. Ct. 537, 64 L. Ed. 940; Rowe v. Boyle (C. C. A.) 268 F. 809; Bechtold v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 816; Crosland v. Dyson (C. C. A.) 280 F. Keeping the statute in mind, and putting the averments of the indictment in the second......
-
Weedin v. Moy Fat
...warrant the discharge of the accused on habeas corpus. Matter of Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 31 S. Ct. 143, 55 L. Ed. 184; Bechtold v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 816; Collins v. Morgan, 243 F. 495, 156 C. C. A. 193; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23 L. Ed. 787; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 S.......