Chapman v. United States, 4634.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit
Citation10 F.2d 124
PartiesCHAPMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Docket NumberNo. 4634.,4634.
Decision Date29 January 1926

10 F.2d 124 (1925)

CHAPMAN et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 4634.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 21, 1925.

Rehearing Denied January 29, 1926.


Cecil H. Smith, of Sherman, Tex. (Head, Dillard, Smith, Maxey & Head, of Sherman, Tex., Ratliff & Ratliff, of Tishomingo, Okl., and J. H. Mathers, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Randolph Bryant, U. S. Atty., of Sherman, Tex.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an indictment in nine counts against six defendants. The first count alleges a conspiracy, under section 37 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10201), to transport motor vehicles from Oklahoma to Texas and from Texas to Oklahoma, with knowledge that they had been stolen, in violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. 41 Stat. 324 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 10418b-10418f). Numerous overt acts to effect the object of the conspiracy are alleged. The other counts charged all the defendants with the substantive offenses of transporting motor vehicles in interstate commerce with knowledge that they were stolen; each of said counts specifying a particularly described automobile, which was also referred to in connection with some of the overt acts alleged in the first count. Only two of the defendants, Chapman and Lynn, have sued out writ of error. Chapman was convicted on the first, second, and third counts, and Lynn on the first or conspiracy count. Chapman was sentenced to pay a fine of $2,500 and to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary for 18 months; but in default of the payment of the fine he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years. Lynn was sentenced to pay a fine of $3,000 and to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary

for 15 months; but in default of the payment of the fine he was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2 years

There was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to sustain the verdict. According to the testimony, Chapman and Lynn arranged to buy and did buy a number of Ford cars, which they knew were stolen and brought from Texas into Oklahoma. They also, by agreement, bought Ford cars stolen in Oklahoma and sold them in Texas. One Russell, who testified for the government, had been convicted in Texas of a felony, and his testimony was admitted, over the objection that it was incompetent.

It is argued that the conspiracy count is bad, because it charges more than one criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Pool v. Sneed, 5531.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 7 June 1943
    ...353, L.R.A.1917A, 1133; Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 680, 166 So. 604; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. De Bord, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 691, 53 S.W. 587, writ refused; Goldstein v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 171 S.W......
  • Troutman v. United States, 1671
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 January 1939
    ...F. 217; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 229 F. 940; Dell Aira v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 102; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124; O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 322; 100 F.2d 632 Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F. 2d 42; Collins v. United States, 8 C......
  • State ex rel. Wolfe v. King, 22049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 20 April 1994
    ...felons are competent to testify, see: United States v. Segelman, D.C.W.D.Pa.1949, 83 F.Supp. 890; Chapman v. United States, 5th Cir.1926, 10 F.2d 124; Peace v. United States, 7th Cir.1921, 278 F. 180; Ammerman v. United States, 8th Cir.1920, 267 F. 136, 143. Indeed, the practice of calling ......
  • Downing v. United States, 21797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 8 November 1965
    ...States (5 Cir. 1959) 271 F.2d 777; Ladner v. United States (5 Cir. 1948) 168 F.2d 771; Chapman et al. v. United States (5 Cir. 1926) 10 F.2d 124. The place where the conspiracy was formed is immaterial if at least one of the overt acts alleged and proved took place within the district where......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Pool v. Sneed, No. 5531.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 7 June 1943
    ...353, L.R.A.1917A, 1133; Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 680, 166 So. 604; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. De Bord, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 691, 53 S.W. 587, writ refused; Goldstein v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 171 S.W......
  • Troutman v. United States, No. 1671
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 January 1939
    ...F. 217; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 229 F. 940; Dell Aira v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 102; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124; O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 322; 100 F.2d 632 Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F. 2d 42; Collins v. United States, 8 C......
  • State ex rel. Wolfe v. King, No. 22049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 20 April 1994
    ...felons are competent to testify, see: United States v. Segelman, D.C.W.D.Pa.1949, 83 F.Supp. 890; Chapman v. United States, 5th Cir.1926, 10 F.2d 124; Peace v. United States, 7th Cir.1921, 278 F. 180; Ammerman v. United States, 8th Cir.1920, 267 F. 136, 143. Indeed, the practice of calling ......
  • U.S. v. Estrada De Castillo, No. 75-2914
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 20 October 1976
    ...a fixed period upon default as a punitive measure; rather, the defendant must be released upon payment. (Chapman v. U. S. (5th Cir. 1926) 10 F.2d 124; U. S. v. Wagner (9th Cir. 1924) 3 F.2d 864; but see S. Rubin, supra, at 283-84.) This sentence must further the enforcement process or it dr......
  • 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