Bell v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3898. |
| Citation | 285 F. 145 |
| Parties | BELL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied December 15, 1923.
W. B Harrell and Jed C. Adams, both of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
Henry Zweifel, U.S. Atty., and H. L. Arterberry and Ben P. Allred Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Fort Worth, Tex.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
The information in the above-stated case contained two counts. The first charged the plaintiff in error, Bell, with a violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305), in transporting 15 gallons of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes from Mt. Pleasant, Tex., to the Con Henderson farm in Tarrant county. The second count charged him with unlawfully having in his possession 15 gallons of whisky for beverage purposes, in violation of said act. Each count charged that said liquor did not come within any of the exceptions or exemptions of said act of Congress providing for the lawful possession thereof, and said possession was not for sacramental, scientific, mechanical, or medicinal purposes.
A demurrer was interposed to each of said counts upon two grounds: First, that neither of said counts charged any offense against the laws of the United States; second, that each count failed to charge an offense under said laws, and failed to advise defendant of the element of the offense or the exact nature thereof. On the trial this demurrer was overruled.
On the trial it appeared that certain prohibition officers, armed with a search warrant therefor, were searching the premises of the Con Henderson farm for intoxicating liquor and a still. While said search was in progress, Bell was seen approaching said farm in an automobile, and drove therein up to the officers. When the defendant drove up, the officers discovered that he had three 5-gallon bottles or jugs of whisky in his car. Bell remarked, 'Well, I guess you have got me this time. ' Thereupon he was arrested by the prohibition officers and the liquor seized. The defendant interposed a motion, seeking the return to him of the whisky seized, upon the ground that it had been seized without warrant and without his consent, in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which motion was overruled.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced by the court first to pay a fine of $500; such sentence being stated to be generally on both counts of the information. Upon the defendant's insistence that the court should specify on which ground of the indictment such fine was assessed, the court adjudged said fine to be paid on the second count of said information, and further imposed an additional penalty of $250 on the first count of said information.
1. We do not think there was any error in refusing to return the whisky found in said automobile, or in permitting the officers to testify as to this occurrence and what was then said. So far as the record discloses, the officers were engaged under a valid search warrant in searching the Con Henderson farm for an illicit still and liquor unlawfully made. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...... opinion of Mr. Justice BRADLEY, speaking for the court in. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6. S.Ct. 524. As was there shown, it took its origin in the. ...629;. (1923). Boyd v. U.S. 286 F. 930. . . C. C. A. 5th CIRCUIT. (1922). Bell v. U.S. 285 F. 145. . . C. C. A. 7th CIRCUIT. (1920). Haywood v. U.S. 268 F. 803. ......
-
State v. Young
...... senses detect it. State v. Kelly, 268 P. 571,. (Wyo.); Bell v. U.S. 285 F. 145, certiorari denied,. 262 U.S. 744; Boyd v. U.S. 286 F. 930; U. S. v. ...U.S. 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790.". . . The. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,. in Miller v. United States, 9 F.2d 382, ......
-
State v. Williams
...Separate acts, though parts of a continuous transaction may be made separate crimes by the legislative power.' In Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F. 145, 147, certiorari denied 262 U.S. 744, 43 S.Ct. 521, 67 L.Ed. 1211, the defendant drove up in his car and Federal agents searched and fo......
-
United States v. Harris
...imposed, despite the fact that one transaction only is involved. Massey v. United States, 8 Cir. 1922, 281 F. 293; Bell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1923, 285 F. 145; Singer v. United States, 3 Cir. 1923, 288 F. 695; Page v. United States, 9 Cir. 1922, 278 F. 41; Morgan v. Devine, 1915, 237 U.S......