Jordan v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4187. |
| Citation | 299 F. 298 |
| Parties | JORDAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. H. Forney, of Moscow, Idaho, for plaintiff in error.
E. G. Davis, U.S. Atty., and Wm. H. Langroise, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Boise, Idaho, and J. H. McEvers, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Pocatello, Idaho.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced upon two counts of an information which charged him with unlawful sale and the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
It is contended that the affidavit in verification of the information was wholly insufficient to warrant the arrest and trial of the plaintiff in error. The question whether it was insufficient to warrant his arrest is not before us. No attack is or was made upon the warrant of arrest.
On the trial no objection was made to the information for want of verification or upon any ground. By going to trial on the information, without objection, the plaintiff in error waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the verification. Simpson v. United States, 241 F. 841, 154 C.C.A. 543; Abbott Bros. Co. v. United States, 242 F. 751, 155 C.C.A. 339; Wilson v. United States (C.C.A.) 275 F. 307; United States v. M'Donald (D.C.) 293 F. 433. And it is well settled that a trial and conviction may be had upon an information which is without verification. Kelly v. United States, 250 F. 947, 163 C.C.A. 197; Brown v. United States, 257 F. 703, 168 C.C.A. 653; Weeks v. United States, 216 F. 292, 132 C.C.A. 436, L.R.A. 1915B, 651, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 524.
The further contention is made that the provision of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/4 et seq.) which declares punishable the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor is unconstitutional, for the reason that it is not authorized by any of the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment. The question has been before this court, and decided adversely to the contention, in Page v. United States, 278 F. 41, and the same has been held in United States v. Murphy (D.C.) 264 F. 842, Rose v. United States (C.C.A.) 274 F. 245, and Massey v. United States (C.C.A.) 281 F. 293.
We find no error. The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albrecht v. United States, 9
...864. 6 Compare Yaffee v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 497; Farinelli v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 198, 199. See Jordan v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 298. 7 See cases cited in note 5, supra. 8 The leading case on the use of summons in criminal prosecutions against corporations ......
-
United States v. Pickard
...L.Ed. 505; Merrill v. United States, 9th Cir., 1925, 6 F.2d 120; Wagner v. United States, supra, 3 F.2d at page 864; Jordan v. United States, 9 Cir., 1924, 299 F. 298, 299; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1919, 257 F. 703, 705, certiorari denied, 1919, 251 U.S. 554, 40 S.Ct. 119, 64 L.Ed. 4......
-
Browning v. United States
...Massey v. U. S., 281 F. 293 (this court); Rose v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 274 F. 245, 248; Page v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 278 F. 41, 44; Jordan v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 298. That a state, in order to efficiently enforce its liquor laws, may prohibit the possession of intoxicating liquor within its bou......
-
Merrill v. United States
...testimony as to prior sales. All these questions have been decided adversely to the plaintiff in error by this court. Jordan v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 298; Nunn v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 380, decided March 2, 1925; Fassolla v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 378; Anzine ......