Blanchard v. United States, 5662.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5662.,5662. |
| Parties | BLANCHARD et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Russell Allen and Clinton S. Bailey, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
Norman A. Dodge, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex. (Elijah Crippen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were convicted of the unlawful possession and transportation for beverage purposes of thirteen gallons of grape wine, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA), as charged in the first and third counts of the indictment. They were acquitted on the second count, which charged the unlawful sale of the same wine, and on the fourth count, which charged a conspiracy to commit the substantive offenses alleged in the other counts. This appeal is taken on the grounds that the trial court erred in admitting proof that the wine, which was seized on Blanchard's premises without a search warrant, was intoxicating, and that without such proof the other evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The appellant Blanchard operated the Home Bottling Supplies Company, which he represented, in circulars which he sent out, was the distributor of unfermented grape juice. The appellant Wright was his salesman. Two prohibition agents by the use of one of Blanchard's circulars met Wright by appointment at a hotel. They testified that at this meeting Wright produced from a leather case four bottles which he said contained samples of wine produced from the grape juice he was offering for sale; that they tasted these samples and found them to be intoxicating; that Wright offered to sell them unfermented grape juice which he said would become wine containing about 20 per cent. of alcohol if placed in a keg and kept in a warm place for about ninety days; that they stated to Wright that they did not like to wait ninety days, but would buy wine like the samples if they could get it at once; that Wright then stated to them that three kegs containing about thirteen gallons had been shipped out and returned, and that he could sell that to them if it was still in stock; that Wright then went to the telephone, and, after talking to Blanchard, stated that the three kegs had not been sold; that they then went with him to the Home Bottling Supplies Company, where they met Blanchard; that Blanchard invited them in and drew...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. On Lee
...to the government. These were the facts in Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453, and in Blanchard v. United States, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 904. Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 669, 68 S.Ct. 1229, 92 L.Ed. 1663, relied upon by my colleagues to support their spy ana......
-
Warren v. Territory of Hawaii, 9506.
..."stealth" within the principles established in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, and Blanchard v. United States, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 904, 905, certiorari denied, 282 U.S. 865, 51 S.Ct. 40, 75 L.Ed. 765. However, it is plain that the "stealth" contemplated in the......
-
Heflin v. United States
...Ballard v. Nye, 5 Cir., 18 F.2d 98. 2 Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 16 S.Ct. 125, 40 L.Ed. 269; Blanchard v. United States, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 904; United States v. Anderson, 7 Cir., 101 F. 2d 325, certiorari denied 307 U.S. 625, 59 S.Ct. 822, 83 L.Ed. 1502; United States v. Beck, 7 Ci......