Broens v. United States
| Citation | 290 F. 809 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3793. |
| Parties | BROENS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Ralph Davis, of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
S. E Murray, U.S. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn. (W. H. Fisher and A. A Hornsby, Asst. U.S. Attys., both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and HICKENLOOPER District judge.
Broens was convicted under two counts: First, for the possession of intoxicating liquor at Kansas City Junction, a railway crossing in the outskirts of Memphis; and, second, for transporting the liquor from Louisville to Kansas City Junction-- both in violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). Separate sentences were imposed. His sole complaint is that there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict.
The printed record is confused as to the bill of exceptions. The purpose of a bill of exceptions is to preserve and certify a record of the proceedings on the trial, before the judgment and which do not otherwise appear upon the formal record of the proceedings in the case. In this record a certificate which would be appropriate at the foot of the bill of exceptions appears after the transcript of the proceedings after the trial, and seems to include the assignments of error and bond for review. However, we assume that this is merely the result of some confusion, and consider the certificate as transposed to its proper place.
The utmost case which it can be thought the evidence tends to show against Broens is this: That an unknown man stepped from the Louisville train as it arrived at Kansas City Junction, slowing up with a momentary stop at the usual point therefor, and had with him four suit cases containing liquor; that Broens had come to this point in his automobile, by appointment, to meet this man, and, leaving his car at the curb close by the stopping place, was helping to put the liquor in the automobile, and one suit case had been so placed; that then the officers appeared, and the other escaped, but Broens was arrested.
This state of facts was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that Broens was in possession of the liquor in violation of section 3 of the act. We cannot see in it any substantial basis which would support a conclusion that Broens was participating in, or aiding, or abetting the Louisville-Kansas City Junction transportation charged. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial