Hilsinger v. United States, No. 3937

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtDENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit , and SIMONS
Citation2 F.2d 241
PartiesHILSINGER et al. v. UNITED STATES (two cases).
Decision Date30 July 1924
Docket NumberNo. 3937,3938.

2 F.2d 241 (1924)

HILSINGER et al.
v.
UNITED STATES (two cases).

Nos. 3937, 3938.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 10, 1924.

Rehearing Denied July 30, 1924.


2 F.2d 242

Edward J. Dempsey and Allen C. Roudebush, both of Cincinnati, Ohio (Edw. M. Hurley and Frederick Closs, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Thos. H. Morrow and R. T. Dickerson, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (Benson W. Hough, U. S. Atty., of Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.

Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and SIMONS, District Judge.

DENISON, Circuit Judge.

The operations of the Schaller Brewing Company, of Cincinnati, had passed into the hands of defendant Hilsinger, as receiver, appointed by the state court. Defendant Keck had been president of the company, and continued active connection with its affairs under the receiver. Defendant Hermann was a salesman and collector for the receiver. It appears without question that, under the receivership, the brewery was manufacturing and selling two grades of beer. One grade, spoken of as "near bear," had an alcoholic content of less than one-half of 1 per cent., and there is no complaint as to the manufacture or sale of this beer. The other grade was darker in color, and it was regularly sold for $18 per barrel, while the near beer was sold for $9.20 per barrel. It is the theory of the government that the higher priced grade was beer in which the alcoholic content had not been reduced to the maximum point allowed by law, but was allowed to continue to be about 3 per cent., and these prosecutions are based on the theory that the defendants were engaged in making and selling this 3 per cent. beer. The indictment in the District Court, Case 2206, was for conspiracy to make, possess, and sell; that in 2205 for maintaining the brewery as a nuisance.

Throughout the trial, this heavier and darker beer was commonly referred to as "good beer," in distinction from near beer. It is apparent that the judge and witnesses and counsel, by the phrase "good beer," meant beer which approximated the alcoholic standard of the conditions before the Volstead Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.); and we see no error or prejudice resulting from the use of this nomenclature.

Having in some way come to suspect that this brewery was putting out this good beer, the prohibition agents, over a period of three or four days, observed the Schaller truck delivering barrels of beer to saloons, and on applying shortly to these same saloons and asking for good beer, were served with beer which they took away with them and found to contain about 3 per cent. of alcohol. Having this measure of confirmation of their suspicions, they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 40 S.Ct. 106, 64 L.Ed. 194; U. S. v. Hilsinger, D.C., 284 F. 585, Id., 6 Cir., 132 F. Supp. 665 2 F.2d 241, certiorari denied 266 U.S. 622, 45 S.Ct. 100, 69 L.Ed. 473; Taylor v. Fine, D.C.S.D.Cal., 115 F.Supp. Defendants attempt to distinguish the......
  • Vassar Foundry Co. v. Whiting Corporation, No. 4039.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1924
    ...state statute did not necessarily bar bankruptcy proceedings (Scheuer v. Smith Co. C. C. A. 5 112 F. 407, 50 C. C. A. 312). But the Supreme 2 F.2d 241 Court of Michigan, construing these sections 13563-13570, has held that a corporation dissolved thereunder was so completely nonexistent tha......
2 cases
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 40 S.Ct. 106, 64 L.Ed. 194; U. S. v. Hilsinger, D.C., 284 F. 585, Id., 6 Cir., 132 F. Supp. 665 2 F.2d 241, certiorari denied 266 U.S. 622, 45 S.Ct. 100, 69 L.Ed. 473; Taylor v. Fine, D.C.S.D.Cal., 115 F.Supp. Defendants attempt to distinguish the......
  • Vassar Foundry Co. v. Whiting Corporation, No. 4039.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1924
    ...state statute did not necessarily bar bankruptcy proceedings (Scheuer v. Smith Co. C. C. A. 5 112 F. 407, 50 C. C. A. 312). But the Supreme 2 F.2d 241 Court of Michigan, construing these sections 13563-13570, has held that a corporation dissolved thereunder was so completely nonexistent tha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT