Fiddelke v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6303.,6303. |
| Citation | 47 F.2d 751 |
| Parties | FIDDELKE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William A. Kelly and Joseph L. Sweeney, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and Herman A. Van Der Zee, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before RUDKIN, WILBUR, and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction under three counts of an indictment. The first count charged that on or about June 25, 1930, at the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, and within the jurisdiction of the court, the appellant did unlawfully sell and distribute not in nor from the original stamped package a lot of morphine in quantity particularly described as two cans containing approximately one ounce each. The second count charged that at the same time and place the appellant did fraudulently and knowingly conceal and facilitate the concealment of the same lot or quantity of morphine, and that the same had been imported into the United States contrary to law, as the appellant then and there well knew. No question is raised concerning the third, or conspiracy, count.
It is contended that the first and second counts are insufficient because they fail to allege the time when the crime was committed, the place where committed, or the circumstances of the crime. Indictments in all respects similar to this have been so often sustained by this court that the question is no longer an open one with us. Wong Lung Sing v. U. S. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elkins v. United States
...States, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 776; Cummings v. United States, 9 Cir., 15 F.2d 168; Rubio v. United States, 9 Cir., 22 F.2d 766; Fiddelke v. United States, 9 Cir., 47 F.2d 751; Sutton v. United States, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 863; Shreve v. United States, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 796; Maxfield v. United States, 9......
-
Brown v. United States
...the transportation of the drug on March 4 and 13, 1953. 3 Pon Wing Quong v. United States, 9 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 751; Fiddelke v. United States, 9 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 751; Parmagini v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 42 F.2d 721; Foster v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 11 F.2d 100; Lee Tung v.......
-
NATIONAL LAB. REL. BD. v. GREATER NEW YORK BR. CORP.
...air" were no longer in the employ of the company. 2 N. L. R. B. v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 885, 889. 3 Cf. Fiddelke v. United States, 9 Cir., 47 F.2d 751, 752; Thompson v. United States, 3 Cir., 283 F. 895, 897; Bryant v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F. 378, 380; United States v. A......
-
Pon Wing Quong v. United States, 9257.
...authorities upon which appellant relies and find that they do not support appellant's contention. See our opinion in Fiddelke v. United States, 9 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 751. The appellant claims that the indictment to the third count is duplicitous. The exact question raised was considered and......