Joyce v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3981. |
| Citation | 294 F. 665 |
| Parties | JOYCE et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Samuel M. Shortridge, Jr., and Marshall B. Woodworth, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error Joyce.
John T Williams, U.S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U.S. Atty both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Joyce plaintiff in error, to be called defendant, together with five others, was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act. Joyce brought writ of error to this court.
The defendant has argued that the evidence was not sufficient to justify conviction. But there was ample to require submission of the issues to the jury and to sustain the verdict. According to the witnesses for the prosecution, in the premises described as the Hillsdale Hotel, Nos. 47 and 51 Sixth street, was a long bar, divided by a partition running from the 'barroom' to the south wall. In the partition was a door worked with a spring, operated by a rope that ran behind the bar. One witness said:
Witnesses smelled liquor in there on divers occasions. Some days prior to the arrest, Joyce was introduced to a witness as the manager or boss. Liquor was sold by some of the defendants other than Joyce, but Joyce was often seen in the premises. Joyce told a witness that his 'jackass' brandy was made from alcohol from the government bonded warehouse. Joyce was once seen behind the bar, taking money out of the cash register. About April 23, prohibition agents found Joyce and two other defendants behind the bar. Some one refused to open the partition door, whereupon the officers shoved it open and saw what smelled like liquor on the floor, and found a small quantity of liquor in a pitcher that the bartender, Monahan, a defendant, was trying to empty into a funnel. A rent collector testified that about January, 1922, by direction of Joyce, the bartender paid the rent of the premises for a month, although the lease was in another person's name. There was also evidence that on April 12, about 13 days before the 'raid,' Joyce rented a room for 'J. Clark' at a hotel opposite the soft drink place. Joyce was not living at the hotel, but visited the room, and the employees complained that some one plugged the keyhole, and that the maid could not get in with her pass key. Joyce was seen to enter the hotel at night, taking sacks containing bottles to the third floor, where he carried the sacks with their contents toward the room he had engaged. A maid at the hotel testified that once she was in the room when Joyce was there, and that he invited her to have a drink. Joyce was seen to take bottles from the hotel to the place opposite, and to dump the contents into a pitcher, from which something was poured into glasses and sold to patrons.
Defendant earnestly assails the credibility of a material witness for the prosecution, and contends that Joyce conclusively proved that he was not in San Francisco on April 10th, 11th, and 12th, at times when the witness testified he saw Joyce at the premises which were afterward raided. Counsel for the government conceded on the trial that Joyce and Monahan left San Francisco on the evening of the 10th and returned on the evening of the 12th. Whether the witness was honestly mistaken, or deliberately told falsehoods in respect to the dates, was a question for the determination of the jury. That Joyce was present in the premises on the evening of April 23d, when the raid was made, was admitted by Joyce in his own testimony. Conflicts in the evidence were numerous; but, as it was the province of the jury to resolve them, this court will not disturb the verdict. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 38 Sup.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410.
Reversal is urged because of refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions upon the subject of the reputation of the defendant. The court charged that, evidence of good reputation having been produced, it was the duty of the jury to consider such evidence, and all the other evidence in the case, and that 'if, upon a consideration of all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mannix v. United States
...States, 3 Cir., 282 F. 776; Kalmanson v. United States, 2 Cir., 287 F. 71; LeMore v. United States, 5 Cir., 253 F. 887; Joyce v. United States, 9 Cir., 294 F. 665. Of course it is elementary that the trial court is never bound to instruct a jury in the exact language of the requests made by......
-
Allred v. United States, 10678.
...relied upon." In this case, all assigned errors are specified. 3 The coat was put in evidence as appellee's Exhibit A. 4 Joyce v. United States, 9 Cir., 294 F. 665, 666; Driskill v. United States, 9 Cir., 24 F.2d 413; Meyer v. United States, 9 Cir., 67 F.2d 223, 225; Hemphill v. United Stat......
-
Kreiner v. United States, 229.
...to the jury. We do not think that the trial judge was required to charge the jury in the language quoted from the opinion." In Joyce v. United States, 294 F. 665, the court charged that, "* * * evidence of good reputation having been produced, it was the duty of the jury to consider such ev......
-
McDonough v. United States
... ... 509, 30 Sup.Ct. 588, 54 L.Ed. 861, 19 Ann.Cas ... 778; Mitchell v. United States, 196 F. 874, 116 ... C.C.A. 436.' ... See, ... also, Kettenbach v. United States, 202 F. 377, 390, ... 120 C.C.A. 505; Lueders v. United States, 210 F ... 419, 421, 127 C.C.A. 151; Joyce v. United States ... (C.C.A.) 294 F. 665, 668 ... To ... avoid this long and well established limitation upon the ... authority of an appellate court under the federal judicial ... system to review the action of the trial court in granting or ... refusing to grant a new trial, the ... ...