Isbell v. United States

Decision Date27 April 1928
Docket NumberNo. 7715.,7715.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

P. K. Morrill, of Altus, Okl. (Stevens & Cline, of Lawton, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Leslie E. Salter and William P. Kelley, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and KENNEDY, District Judge.

KENNEDY, District Judge.

Plaintiff in error Isbell, with one Olin Camp, as defendants, were convicted in the court below upon an indictment charging them with violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (18 USCA § 408). From such conviction Isbell has sued out a writ of error, which brings the case before this court.

The general trend of the evidence in the court below is to the effect that the two defendants left the city of Wichita, Kan., in a car belonging to one J. Arch Butts, and went to different points in the state of Oklahoma which are situated in the Western judicial district of that state.

Error is assigned to the trial court because of the denial of a motion made on behalf of the defendant Isbell for a severance. This, under the authorities, rests in the sound discretion of the court. Nothing appears in the record which would indicate that the trial court abused this discretion in denying the motion, or that the facts in this case present a situation from which it might be apparent that either defendant could not or did not secure a fair and impartial trial by being tried jointly with his codefendant.

The indictment itself is challenged because of its alleged legal insufficiency. The indictment charges in substance, that on or about the 30th day of January, 1926, in Washita county, in the Western district of Oklahoma, the defendants did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from Wichita, in the state of Kansas, into the Western district of Oklahoma, a certain Buick automobile, giving the number thereof, which had theretofore been stolen from one J. Arch Butts, the owner thereof, at Wichita, Kan., the said defendants then and there well knowing said motor vehicle to have been stolen. This statement appears to be sufficiently specific under the recognized rule to advise the defendant of the charge made against him. It clearly appears that there was charged a joint transportation by the two defendants of a car stolen from a person named, with knowledge of its being stolen, from Wichita, Kan., into the Western district of Oklahoma, and that in a specified county in the latter state, to wit, Washita county, a portion of such transportation was fixed. It was in this county that the defendant Camp, according to the proofs, had eventually driven the car, and defendant Isbell had later...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Manning v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • September 9, 1954
    ...evidence up to this point in the case at bar is that it sufficiently shows that Mr. Ford's 1939 Chevrolet sedan was stolen. Isbell v. U. S., 10 Cir., 1928, 26 F.2d 24; Word v. U. S., 10 Cir., 1952, 199 F. 2d 625. It does not establish that that particular car was the one driven by defendant......
  • Paladini v. Flink
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 14, 1928
    ......v. Southern Pacific Co., 273 U. S. 207, 47 S. Ct. 357, 71 L. Ed. 612, decision United States Supreme Court February 21, 1927. In the latter case, after referring to several of its own ......
  • United States v. Adcock, 21465.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • March 30, 1943
    ...fraud or with intent to steal or purloin', the Act used expressions of well and long known legal and popular meaning." In Isbell v. United States, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 24, the Court had under consideration the same statute which is involved in this case and rejected the contention that the prope......

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