Bradford v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 March 1907 |
| Docket Number | 1,564. |
| Citation | 152 F. 616 |
| Parties | BRADFORD et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
On Rehearing, April 9, 1907.
Edgar H. Farrar, Frank L. Richardson, and Thos. J. Kernan (Richardson & Soule, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
W. W. Howe, U.S. Atty., and Rufus E. Foster, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Before McCORMICK and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District judge.
In this case Bradford and Wright were tried together in the Circuit Court and found guilty on certain counts of the indictment. They reserved a bill of exceptions, and sued out a writ of error to this court. The trial judge, Hon. Charles Parlange, annexed to the bill of exceptions an elaborate statement of the case, and of his reasons for his several rulings complained of and to which exceptions were reserved. Those reasons are given in United States v. Bradford et al. (C.C.) 148 F. 413, 430. The opinion there reported deals with and decides all the material questions argued at the bar and in the briefs submitted in this court. After careful consideration of the argument and the briefs, we have reached the same conclusions announced by the learned trial judge. We are of opinion, therefore, that there is no reversible error in the record.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
On Rehearing.
In this case the plaintiffs in error present applications for rehearing. They do not show any ground therefor that induces us to believe that a rehearing might result in our changing the views announced in the decision of the case heretofore rendered.
The application for rehearing is therefore denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schneiderman
...denied, 1907, 207 U.S. 588, 28 S.Ct. 255, 52 L.Ed. 353; see United States v. Bradford, E.D.La.1905, 148 F. 413, 418, 419, affirmed, 5 Cir., 1907, 152 F. 616, certiorari denied, 1907, 206 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 795, 51 L.Ed. This does not mean that evidence of the conspiracy antedating the three......
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
...Inc., 1929, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 73 L.Ed. 752; United States v. Bradford, C.C.E.D.La. 1905, 148 F. 413, affirmed per curiam, 5 Cir., 1906, 152 F. 616, certiorari denied 1907, 206 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 795, 51 L.Ed. 1190—do not answer these questions. The first two of these three cases c......
-
State v. Love
... ... 195, 153 N.E ... 357; State v. Gregory, 93 N. J. Law, 205, 107 A ... 459; U. S. v. Bradford, 148 F. 413, 152 F. 616, 81 ... C. C. A. 606, 27 S.Ct. 795, 206 U.S. 563, 51 L.Ed. 1190; ... ...
-
Jones v. United States
... ... purpose more than three years before the filing of the ... indictment ought not to constitute, and does not ... constitute, a defense to the charge of the conspiracy ... within the three years.' ... See, ... also, to the same effect, Bradford v. U.S., 152 F ... 616, 617, 81 C.C.A. 606; U.S. v. Bradford (C.C.) 148 ... F. 413; U.S. v. Greene (D.C.) 146 F. 803; Id ... (D.C.) ... 115 F. 343; Lorenz v. U.S., 24 App.D.C. 337, 384; ... People v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N.Y.) 259, 21 Am.Dec ... 122; Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. State, 75 Miss ... ...