Hockett v. United States

• Citation: 265 F. 588
• Decision Date: 17 May 1920
• Docket Number: 3388.
• Parties: HOCKETT et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

265 F. 588

HOCKETT et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3388.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 17, 1920

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1920.

Harry C. Miller, of El Paso, Tex., A. A. Worsley, of Tucson, Ariz and Thomas Ball, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.

Thomas A. Flynn, U.S. Atty., of Phoenix, Ariz.

Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and VAN FLEET, District judge.

VAN FLEET, District Judge.

The plaintiffs in error, who, as in the court below, may be designated as defendants, were, jointly with others, indicted under section 37, P.C. (Comp. St. Sec. 10201), for a conspiracy to violate the act known as the Reed Amendment (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 8739a 10387a-10387c). Defendants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and seek a review of the judgment.

Besides a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, raised by a demurrer, which was overruled, defendants urge upon our attention several assignments of error in the instructions of the court and rulings on evidence; but the sole question open to our review is that involving the sufficiency of the indictment, since the record brought up under the writ consists of the judgment roll alone, without a bill of exceptions, and there is, consequently, no basis upon which to determine whether there was error in any other ruling complained of.

The material part of the indictment is that these defendants with the others named therein, on the 15th day of January 1918, 'did wrongfully and feloniously conspire, combine and confederate together, and with divers other persons to the grand jurors unknown, to commit an offense against the United States; that is to say, to wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously transport, and cause to be transported, in interstate commerce, intoxicating liquors, to wit, 500 cases of whisky to and into the state of Arizona, which said state of Arizona was then and there a state the laws of which prohibited the manufacture or sale therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes; and in furtherance of said conspiracy, combination and confederation, and to effect the object of said conspiracy, the said Harry C. Wilson, on the 8th day of October, 1918, did drive a certain automobile loaded with intoxicating liquors, to wit, whisky, wine, and other intoxicating liquors, the exact kind and character being to the grand jurors unknown and the exact amount and quantity being to the grand jurors unknown, to a certain house in Pirtleville, Arizona;' and overt acts of similar character are alleged to have been committed by other of the defendants.

The objections to the sufficiency of the indictment are that it fails to charge an offense against the United States in two respects: (a) That it 'does not show that the alleged transportation of intoxicating liquors to the state of Arizona was had for a purpose prohibited by the laws' of that state; and (b) that it 'omits to sufficiently describe the offense sought to be charged, in failing to allege the place from which said intoxicating liquors were transported to the State of Arizona.'

1. In support of the first objection it is urged, in substance that the act in question does not make it an offense to transport intoxicating liquors in interstate commerce into a 'dry' state for any and all purposes, but excepts from its operation shipments of such liquor intended for 'scientific, sacramental, medicinal and mechanical purposes,' and that the law of Arizona does not forbid the use of such liquors for such excepted purposes; that therefore, in order to make out a conspiracy to commit an act constituting an offense against the United States the indictment should allege that the intent was to...