Bolt v. United States, No. 4154.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtMARTIN, Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices
Citation55 App. DC 120,2 F.2d 922
PartiesBOLT v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date01 December 1924
Docket NumberNo. 4154.

55 App. DC 120, 2 F.2d 922 (1924)

BOLT
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 4154.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted November 3, 1924.

Decided December 1, 1924.


E. C. Kriz and Goodhue Weatherly, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Peyton Gordon and J. J. O'Leary, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the police court of the District of Columbia of the crime of carrying a concealed deadly or dangerous weapon.

Two police officers testified, over the objection and exception of plaintiff in error, that an unidentified man "came into police headquarters and told them that defendant Bolt and a man named English were going to hold up the United Cigar Store at Seventh and F streets." Thereupon, according to their further testimony, they proceeded, between 10 and 11 o'clock on the night of August 11, 1923, to Seventh and F streets, where they located plaintiff in error and English, whom they followed to the park at Seventh street and Pennsylvania avenue. Plaintiff in error and English, after staying in the park for a time, went to Eighth and F streets (a car stop), where the officers arrested plaintiff in error and took from his pocket a revolver. There is no evidence that the revolver was loaded, or that either man had ammunition for it on his person.

Subsequent to the arrest and prior to the trial, a motion was made for the return of the revolver, upon the ground that the search and seizure were in violation of the constitutional rights of plaintiff in error. This motion was denied, as was a motion to suppress the revolver as evidence.

This constituted the government's case, and, his motion for a directed verdict being overruled, plaintiff in error took the stand in his own behalf and stated that English had owed him money and offered

2 F.2d 923
the revolver in payment; that thereupon they went to the home of English to get the revolver, after which they went to Eighth and F streets, and thence to the park at Seventh street and Pennsylvania avenue; that a man named Cunningham, at the New York Dancing Academy at Seventh and E streets, who also owed plaintiff in error, had promised payment after the dance closed; that witness and English therefore went to that place, but found no one there. They then walked up to Eighth and F streets, for the purpose of taking a car home, but were there arrested, taken to police headquarters, and locked up

English testified that he had owed plaintiff in error $25 for a year, and that plaintiff in error frequently had asked him for the money; that, when payment again was requested upon this occasion, witness suggested giving the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Hubbard, Nos. 79-2312
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 9, 1981
    ...States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d at 1347. Property unlawfully seized must on motion be promptly returned, see, e. g., Bolt v. United States, 2 F.2d 922, 923-924 (D.C.Cir.1924), unless it be contraband or statutorily forfeit, in which event it need not be returned at all. United States v. Farrell......
  • Smith v. United States, No. 7305.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 29, 1939
    ...6 Cir., 259 F. 93, such evidence was held to be hearsay and inadmissible. And we said as much in Bolt v. United States, 55 App. D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922. The rule seems to be that, while an officer may testify before a jury that, acting upon information, he did certain things, he may not go fur......
  • George v. United States, No. 8037.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 9, 1942
    ...1939, 70 App.D.C. 255, 105 F.2d 778; Mattson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 7 F.2d 427; Bolt v. United States, 1924, 55 App.D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922; Biandi v. United States, 6 Cir., 1919, 259 F. 93. But the admission of such testimony does not always necessitate reversal. We must give judgmen......
  • Darnall v. United States., No. 94.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • September 16, 1943
    ...must be made before pleading. Though the question now considered was not raised, it was involved in Bolt v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922. There the defendant was arrested without a warrant and charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. On the trial a revolver which was t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • U.S. v. Hubbard, Nos. 79-2312
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 9, 1981
    ...States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d at 1347. Property unlawfully seized must on motion be promptly returned, see, e. g., Bolt v. United States, 2 F.2d 922, 923-924 (D.C.Cir.1924), unless it be contraband or statutorily forfeit, in which event it need not be returned at all. United States v. Farrell......
  • Smith v. United States, No. 7305.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 29, 1939
    ...6 Cir., 259 F. 93, such evidence was held to be hearsay and inadmissible. And we said as much in Bolt v. United States, 55 App. D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922. The rule seems to be that, while an officer may testify before a jury that, acting upon information, he did certain things, he may not go fur......
  • George v. United States, No. 8037.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 9, 1942
    ...1939, 70 App.D.C. 255, 105 F.2d 778; Mattson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 7 F.2d 427; Bolt v. United States, 1924, 55 App.D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922; Biandi v. United States, 6 Cir., 1919, 259 F. 93. But the admission of such testimony does not always necessitate reversal. We must give judgmen......
  • Darnall v. United States., No. 94.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • September 16, 1943
    ...must be made before pleading. Though the question now considered was not raised, it was involved in Bolt v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922. There the defendant was arrested without a warrant and charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. On the trial a revolver which was t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT