Fisher v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1776. |
| Parties | FISHER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Martin Brown, of Moundsville, W. Va., for plaintiff in error.
Harry H. Byrer, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Martinsburg, W.Va. (Stuart W Walker, U.S. Atty., and C. N. Campbell, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Martinsburg, W. Va., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and WADDILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted of a violation of the White Slave Traffic Act (Comp. St. Secs 8812-8819). The indictment contains four counts. There was a verdict of guilty on the first two counts and of not guilty on the remaining counts. The trial court overruled a demurrer to the indictment, and this is assigned as error. As applied to the counts on which defendant was convicted, the objections to the indictment seem to us so wanting in merit as not to require discussion. The offense charged is set out substantially in the language of the statute, and the allegations fully apprised defendant of the charge he was called upon to meet. It is enough to say that in our opinion the first two counts are sufficient in form and substance, and the demurrer was properly overruled.
On the merits the case for the government briefly stated is this: Defendant lived near Benwood, which appears to be a suburb of Wheeling, W.Va. Across the river is the town of Bridgeport, in Belmont county, Ohio. The prosecuting witness, a girl barely 16 years old, lived in that county a few miles out in the country from Bridgeport. The defendant became acquainted with her in the latter part of July, 1918, at a carnival in Bridgeport. They went out riding in his automobile that night, with some other persons, and did not return until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. Two days later he made an appointment by telephone to meet her that evening on the road near her home, and took her on an automobile ride. Their illicit relations commenced during that ride. There was a similar meeting the next and following nights. On Saturday evening, the 3d of August, they went to Bellaire, Ohio, where they stopped at a hotel and spent the night; he registering them as man and wife. The next morning he took her to a point near her home, and made an arrangement to meet her again in the afternoon at the same place. She joined him there, with a suit case in which she had packed her clothing and other belongings, and he took her in his automobile across the river to Wheeling, where he procured a room for her at a boarding house kept by a Mrs. Davis. He paid for her lodging for a week in advance, and at its expiration paid for another week. During her stay there of some 10 days, and later at a house next door, he visited her almost every evening and remained until a late hour. He frequently took her out to ride in his automobile, and on one such occasion they crossed the river to call on her mother, not at her home, but at the house of her sister, with whom she was staying. They returned a few hours later to the boarding house in Wheeling, and their illicit intercourse continued thereafter the same as before.
The defendant's version of their first meeting and subsequent relations was not materially different from the girl's own testimony, except that he stoutly denied having taken her in his automobile over to Wheeling on the Sunday in question, or having had anything to do with her going there at that time. On the contrary, he says he drove her to Bridgeport, where he left her, and returned alone by another bridge, and that he was surprised to find her in Wheeling when he got there. In short, he asserts that she went to Wheeling that day without his knowledge or connivance and wholly against his wish.
The question of how and why she first went to Wheeling is the only question of substantial dispute which the record discloses. We need only say that this issue was properly submitted to the jury, and that on her testimony and related circumstances the jury were amply warranted in finding that she was transported by the defendant in interstate commerce for the purpose prohibited by the act; and if that were the only question we should have no hesitation in affirming the judgment of conviction.
As just stated, the defendant, whilst vigorously denying that he had anything whatever to do with the girl's first going to Wheeling, gave practically the same account as she did of what happened afterwards, including his visits to and intercourse with her at the boarding house, and their frequent automobile rides into the country, on one of which they crossed the river into Ohio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empress Theatre Co. v. Horton
... 266 F. 657 EMPRESS THEATRE CO. v. HORTON. No. 5543. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. July 15, 1920 ... Anan ... Raymond, of Omaha, ... ...
-
Langford v. United States
...child was born. The trip was held to have played no part in inducing the commission of a sexual act in Maryland. In Fisher v. United States, 4 Cir., 266 F. 667, 670, the purpose of the trip was to visit the girl's mother. Although illicit relations were resumed on the return, the court held......
-
Nelms v. United States
...trip or upon the resumption of such activities after returning. Van Pelt v. United States, 4 Cir., 1917, 240 F. 346; Fisher v. United States, 4 Cir., 1920, 266 F. 667; Hunter v. United States, 4 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 55, 73 A.L.R. However, we fail to perceive how invocation of the above princ......
-
United States v. Jackson, 15867.
...his main purposes in so doing were not the immoral purposes required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2421. Fisher v. United States, 266 F. 667 (4th Cir. 1920). In United States v. Lias, 173 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1949), the court's opinion by the late Judge Parker in persuasive dictum uphel......