Brimie v. United States
Decision Date | 06 November 1912 |
Docket Number | 1,788,1,789. |
Citation | 200 F. 726 |
Parties | BRIMIE v. UNITED STATES (two cases). |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Gunda Gilbertson, called by the government, testified she was a clerk at 2062 Milwaukee avenue. She says:
When the government rested, counsel for K. K. Brimie moved that the court direct a verdict as to his client upon counts 4 to 22, both inclusive; counts 1, 2, and 3, being those which covered the transactions at the flat over 2062 Milwaukee avenue. This motion the court denied.
Gunda Gilbertson, recalled by defendant, was then examined, and stated, among other matters:
Defendant K. K. Brimie, being called for himself, testified:
The foregoing is all the evidence which tends to show a joint violation of the oleomargarine statute by the two Brimies.
Plaintiffs in error, hereinafter termed defendants, who are brothers, dealers in oleomargarine at wholesale, were indicted for violations of sections 4, 6, 13, and 17 of the oleomargarine act (Act Aug. 2, 1886, c. 840, 24 Stat. 209, 211, 212 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2234)). The indictment contained 22 counts. Briefly stated, count 4 charges that the defendants added to and mixed with the oleomargarine sold by them artificial coloration which caused it to look like butter, without having paid the tax required by the statute of manufacturers. Counts 5 and 6 charge defendants with producing and furnishing for consumption of others oleomargarine without paying the tax of ten cents a pound required by the statute. Counts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22 allege that defendants produced and packed oleomargarine in tubs, using stamps which had been used before. Counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20, and 21 charge that defendants had in their possession oleomargarine in stamped tubs, which they had emptied without destroying the stamps or reused said empty tubs for packing oleomargarine. Count 15 was nolled. Defendants pleaded not guilty, and on trial had were jointly convicted upon all of said remaining counts.
From the evidence it appeared that Peter K. Brimie owned and operated four stores for the sale of oleomargarine, butter, and other provisions in the city of Chicago, to wit, 1041 Milwaukee avenue, 2710 West North avenue, 1342 Noble street, and 1362 South Halsted street, and that K. K. Brimie owned and operated two stores in said Chicago, viz., 2062 Milwaukee avenue, and 1742 West Eighteenth street. Neither had any interest in or control over any one of the stores of the other. They were not partners in any of the transactions named, and for the purpose of this hearing should be treated as independent dealers. Both resided over K. K. Brimie's store at 2062 Milwaukee avenue. The government's witness, Frank F. Strong, of the revenue service, testified that These tubs were introduced in evidence as Government's Exhibits 5 and 6. ' 'They were,' he continues, Amos W. Marston and Daniel J. Ward, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs in error.
James H. Wilkerson and Henry W. Freeman, both of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.
KOHLSAAT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
With the exception of counts 1 and 2, the indictment, charging joint offenses, and the verdict, finding the defendants jointly guilty, are not supported by any evidence of acts committed by the defendants jointly or by one with the assistance or knowledge or acquiescence of the other. Peter K. Brimie owned and controlled four stores. K. K. Brimie owned and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. State
... ... 78; Thomas v. State, 111 Ala. 54, 20 So. 617; ... Lindsey v. State, 48 Ala. 169; Brimie v. United ... States, 200 F. 726, 119 C.C.A. 170; McGehee v ... State, 58 Ala. 360; State v ... ...
-
Coca Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co.
...200 F. 720 COCA COLA CO. v. GAY-OLA CO. No. 2,235.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.November 7, 1912 [200 F. 721] ... [Copyrighted Material ... ...
-
Coco v. United States
...We think the indictment should have been quashed, or that motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.' In Brimie v. United States, 200 F. 726, 119 C.C.A. 170, the two defendants were indicted and tried for a violation the Oleomargarine Act. A joint verdict of guilty was returne......
-
United States v. Mullen, 8938.
...directed the government to elect, the verdict and sentence against Mullen would have been correct under the authority of Brimie v. U. S., 200 F. 726, 119 C. C. A. 170, so far as that count was concerned, under which there was substantial and ample evidence to submit to the jury as to the jo......