Friedman v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 1163. |
| Citation | 233 F. 429 |
| Parties | FRIEDMAN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Guy A. Ham, of Boston, Mass. (C. A. Dunham, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
James S. Allen, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (George W. Anderson, U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PUTNAM and DODGE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.
This indictment was laid under the act of February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670, c. 50 (U.S. Comp. St. 1913, Secs. 8603, 8604)), charging the defendant with unlawfully receiving and concealing certain brasses stolen from a box car at Springfield while constituting a part of a shipment from Concord, N.H., to Springfield, Mass. The merchandise belonged to the Boston & Maine Railroad, and was a part of its cars being forwarded to the repair shops of the railroad corporation.
Claim is made that, as this material was carried without compensation, and was all the time the property of the Boston & Maine Railroad, it was not within the statute. However, as it was being transported as freight, it was within the letter of the statute, and we know of no reason which takes it out of it. The same words are often used in many different senses, but this word is appropriate for the application made of it here.
Once in interstate commerce, we think the goods transported as freight retained the character thus acquired, and were under the protection of the act, like mail matter, until they reached their ultimate destination.
The plaintiff in error fails to satisfy us that the act, thus understood, violates any constitutional provision. Whoever receives stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, takes the risk, in our opinion, of their having been stolen during transportation in interstate commerce and of their being thus within the protection of the act.
The plaintiff in error also fails to satisfy us that there was prejudicial error in any of the exclusions of testimony to which he excepted.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winer v. United States, 12453.
...person does not alter or prevent the application of the statute designed to protect commerce, which is here involved. Friedman v. United States, 1 Cir., 233 F. 429. The car from Memphis, when it arrived at the Citico Yards in Chattanooga, was placed upon Track 22, on January 24, 1954. The t......
-
United States v. Gollin
...that the carriage was by the owner of the property did not put the property outside of the protection of the statute. Friedman v. United States, 1 Cir., 233 F. 429; certiorari denied 244 U.S. 657, 37 S.Ct. 744, 61 L.Ed. 1375; motion to dismiss granted 244 U.S. 643, 37 S.Ct. 650, 61 L.Ed. 13......
-
United States v. Rose
...truck without compensation when hi-jacked by the defendants. Such facts do not prevent the statute from being applicable. Friedman v. United States, 1 Cir., 233 F. 429, certiorari denied, 244 U.S. 657, 37 S.Ct. 744, 61 L.Ed. 1375; Marifian v. United States, 8 Cir., 82 F.2d 628, certiorari d......
-
Marifian v. United States, 10423-10425.
...such carriage is by the owner of the property being carried put the property outside of the protection of the statute. Friedman v. United States, 233 F. 429 (C.C.A.1), certiorari denied Freedman v. United States, 244 U. S. 657, 37 S.Ct. 744, 61 L.Ed. 1375, and writ of error dismissed Friedm......