De Hart v. United States, 7231
| Decision Date | 03 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | 7244.,No. 7231,7243,7231 |
| Citation | 237 F.2d 227 |
| Parties | Sam Abraham DE HART, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee (3 cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
George B. Dillard, Roanoke, Va., and J. B. Allman, Rocky Mount, Va., for appellant.
Thomas J. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harrisonburg, Va. (John Strickler, U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals in cases involving the possession of a large quantity of sugar intended for use in the manufacture of whiskey in violation of the internal revenue laws. One of the cases was a criminal prosecution, the others were brought for the forfeiture of the sugar and of the truck in which it was being transported at the time of seizure. Jury trial was waived and all of the cases were heard together by the District Judge, without a jury, who found the defendant guilty in the criminal case and ordered the forfeiture of the sugar and truck. The only question presented by the appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain this action on his part. We think that it was.
The evidence showed that the defendant DeHart is a resident of Endicott in Franklin County, Virginia, and is engaged in hauling coal from mines to tipples. He is not engaged in the mercantile business. Nevertheless he purchased 11,750 pounds of sugar in Bluefield, Virginia, 80 miles from his residence, purchased it in a fictitious name and hauled it over the mountains into Franklin County, where it was seized. He paid for it more than it could have been purchased for in Roanoke, 20 miles nearer to his home, and, if purchased there, it would have been delivered by the seller free of charge. He had obtained a merchant's license although having no place of business as a merchant. He was bringing the sugar into a section where there was "considerable bootleg whiskey activity" and sugar is one of the ingredients used in making bootleg whiskey. During the five months immediately preceding the seizure he had purchased 225,000 pounds of sugar in a fictitious name, and after the seizure he went to the seller and asked to have the bill changed to another name, saying that he "got caught". No evidence was offered in explanation of the purchase and possession of so large a quantity of sugar by a man not engaged in the mercantile business and the conclusion is inescapable that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. One 1956 Ford Tudor Sedan, 7564.
...and both DeHart and Weeks, the driver of the truck, were convicted of unlawful possession of the contraband sugar. See DeHart v. United States, 4 Cir., 237 F. 2d 227. In the transportation of the sugar, DeHart, in his Ford automobile, accompanied the truck. The two vehicles proceeded at app......
-
United States v. 2265 One-Gallon Paraffined Tin Cans, 17193.
...no other reasonable explanation and to stultify the administration of justice in the view of all right thinking men." De Hart v. United States, 4 Cir., 237 F.2d 227, 228. "The third and most serious question raised on this appeal relates to the property seized under the search warrant and f......
-
United States v. Brown, 27333
...F.2d 607; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 593, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 928, 80 S.Ct. 755, 4 L.Ed.2d 746; DeHart v. United States, 4 Cir. 1956, 237 F.2d 227. Neither we nor the jury are compelled to stultify our common sense and accept an unreasonable hypothesis of innocence s......
-
United States v. Ragland, 8545.
...for use in violation of the revenue laws by Ragland and Williams, or by others. In the somewhat similar case of DeHart v. United States, 4 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 227, 228, this court "It would, of course, be no defense that he (the defendant) intended to sell it (the sugar) to illicit distill......