Horton v. United States, 11363.

Citation151 F.2d 406
Decision Date27 October 1945
Docket NumberNo. 11363.,11363.
PartiesHORTON v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Hal Lindsay, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., Joel B. Mallett, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., and J. Ellis Mundy, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

A. T. Horton was convicted on an indictment which contained three counts. Counts 1 and 2 were laid under 18 U.S.C.A. § 72 (Criminal Code, Sec. 28). The first count charged that Horton knowingly and willfully and with knowledge of their falsity and with the purpose of defrauding the United States Government, uttered and published 3,000 counterfeit sugar ration coupons. The second count charged that he had in his possession the same counterfeit sugar ration coupons with knowledge of their falsity and with the purpose of uttering and publishing them and thereby defrauding the Government. The third count was drawn under the Second War Powers Act of March 27, 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 633 (5), General Ration Orders Nos. 3 and 8 as amended. This count charged that Horton knowingly and willfully accepted delivery of 15,000 pounds of sugar without surrendering certificates or stamps therefor.

The only errors relied upon are rulings on the evidence, and the refusal of the court to give for the defendant a directed verdict. So that, decision must turn upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to Horton's knowledge of the falsity of the sugar ration coupons.

The evidence is without dispute that the defendant, Horton, had in his possession and transferred to Lanier Brothers, wholesale grocers, on December 23, 1944, 1500 counterfeit sugar ration coupons and on December 27, 1944, 1500 more.

The evidence further showed that Horton had an allowable inventory of only 2500 pounds of sugar, and he was not permitted to purchase over that amount at any one time. On December 28, 1944, he purchased 28,000 pounds, and on other occasions he purchased sugar largely in excess of his inventory. According to the testimony of a witness who was in the employ of Horton, defendant counted the coupons which he was convicted of uttering. The difference in the counterfeit coupons and coupons which are genuine is apparent to the naked eye; the difference was pointed out to the jury. The defendant opened, but did not keep active after October 20, as provided by the regulations, a sugar ration bank account; however, he did keep such an account for meat points. The contention of the defendant was that he was an innocent victim of a man "dressed as a country merchant" who had obtained his confidence and had used the bogus coupons to purchase the sugar from the defendant. According to Horton's own testimony, as found in the record, this "country merchant," whose...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Carney v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 17, 1947
    ...point that but one offense was charged by the record is not well taken. See Wiley v. United States, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 707; Horton v. United States, 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 406; Matthews v. Swope, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 697, 698; Power v. Squier, 9 Cir., 130 F.2d 868, 869; Michener v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 14......
  • United States v. Graham, 15131
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 30, 1963
    ...defendant on probation for a specified period, was not in accordance with the statute. Title 18 U. S.C.A. § 3651. Horton v. United States, 151 F.2d 406, 407 (CA 5, 1945). Cf. United States v. Murray, 275 U.S. 347, 48 S.Ct. 146, 72 L.Ed. 309. The suspension of the two year sentence did not c......
  • United States v. Sams
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 13, 1965
    ...a term of imprisonment which is made conditional upon payment of the fines imposed is not authorized by the statute. Horton v. United States, 151 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1945). Those portions of the judgments relating to the suspension of sentence must be vacated and The judgments of conviction, ......
  • US v. Tepfer, Crim. A. No. 88-00183-03.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 19, 1990
    ...pay any unpaid portion of the fines imposed on Counts One and Two.1 Such a sentence is authorized. 18 U.S.C. § 3651; Horton v. United States, 151 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1945). AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 1990, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Tepfer's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To V......

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