Goode v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 7136.,7136.
• Parties: GOODE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

12 F.2d 742 (1926)

GOODE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7136.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 10, 1926.

Walter A. Raymond, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error

Roscoe C. Patterson, U. S. Atty., and Harry L. Donnelly and S. M. Carmean, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Kansas City, Mo.

Before SANBORN and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced on the second count of an information which charged him with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, to wit, one half pint of whisky, and also on the third count, which charged him with maintaining a nuisance, that is, a place in Kansas City where intoxicating liquors were kept and sold. National Prohibition Act, title 2, §§ 3, 21 and 29, 41 Stat. 316 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 10138½aa, 10138½jj, 10138½p). The sufficiency of the indictment was not challenged until after conviction, and its defects if any were cured by the verdict. No instructions were requested by defendant, no exceptions were saved to those given by the court, and no objections or exceptions were taken during the progress of the trial to the action of the court; and we will not consider the errors assigned as to those subjects. Court rule 24.

Section 29 of the Prohibition Act limits the punishment that may be imposed for the first offense charged in the second count to a fine, for the one charged in the third count the punishment may be either fine or imprisonment, or both. Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that the court imposed both fine and imprisonment on the defendant under the second count, and thus exceeded its jurisdiction. The district attorney insists that this is not a correct interpretation of the sentence, that the imprisonment was imposed for the offense charged in the third count, and only a fine of $200 was assessed against the defendant on the second count. The sentence reads this way:

"This day comes Charles C. Madison, United States attorney, also comes the defendant in person and with counsel, and it appearing that on the 26th of May, 1925, the defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty on the second and third counts of the information herein, and the United States attorney now moves for sentence, and the defendant being called upon to state reasons, if any he has, why sentence should not now be pronounced upon him and none being stated, and the court being fully advised in the premises fixes the punishment of the said George Goode at a fine of $200 on the second count of the information, and six months' imprisonment in...