Haddad v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3884. |
| Citation | 294 F. 536 |
| Parties | HADDAD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Benjamin F. James, of Bowling Green, Ohio (Eldon H. Young, of Toledo, Ohio, and R. W. Stephenson, of Mansfield, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
George E. Reed, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Toledo, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen, U.S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, and John S. Pratt, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment for conspiracy (under section 37 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10201)) containing two counts, one charging intent to violate the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/4 et seq.), and the other to defraud the United States in the possession and sale of alcohol, ostensibly procured for the manufacture of an alleged medicine, but in fact sold for beverage purposes. There was no request for directed verdict, and the charge to the jury is not sent up. There was a single sentence, less than the permissible maximum upon one count.
We find no error in the record, which is in some respects insufficient to present the questions raised. We content ourselves with saying that there was ample testimony sustaining the conviction; that the court rightly excluded as a witness the wife of another defendant on trial (graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 120, 121, 14 Sup.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021; Hendricks v. United States, 219 U.S. 79, 91, 31 Sup.Ct. 193, 55 L.Ed. 102; Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 195, 41 Sup.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214; Wesoky v. United States (C.C.A. 3) 175 F. 333, 99 C.C.A. 121; Talbott v. United States (C.C.A. 5) 208 F. 144, 145, 125 C.C.A. 360); that the motion for new trial was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which was not abused, and so is not reviewable (Robinson v. Van Hooser (C.C.A. 6) 196 F. 620, 627, 116 C.C.A. 294; that we cannot weigh the testimony (Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 373, 26 Sup.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 6 Ann.Cas. 362; Kelly v. United States (C.C.A. 6) 258 F. 392, 169 C.C.A. 408); and that the record does not indicate that plaintiff in error was denied a fair trial.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowdy v. United States
...one of them is not a competent witness for a codefendant of her husband. Israel v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6th) 3 F.(2d) 743, 745; Haddad v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6th) 294 F. 536; Talbott v. U. S. (C. C. A. 5th) 208 F. 144; U. S. v. Davidson (D. C.) 285 F. Certainly, where the testimony of a wife for a c......
-
Israel v. United States
...has held that the wife of one of several defendants is not a competent witness for the defense in a criminal trial. Haddad v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 536, 537. We need not consider whether the statute should be so construed when the defendant offering the witness is being tried sepa......