Lynch v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 2475.,2475. |
| Parties | LYNCH et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
L. G. Southard, of Spartanburg, S. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Joseph A. Tolbert, U. S. Atty., of Greenville, S. C.
Before WADDILL and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judge.
An information under the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.) was filed against the plaintiffs in error, Mat Lynch and Walter Johnson, and one Robert Johnson. The information contained three counts. The first count charged the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; the second count, the unlawful possession of property designed for that purpose, namely, a distilling outfit; and the third count, the unlawful possession of a quart of whisky. In all the counts, the date of the offense was alleged to be October 29, 1925. All three defendants were convicted, but only Mat Lynch and Walter Johnson have sued out a writ of error, alleging error in the trial court in permitting the defendant Walter Johnson to be cross-examined, and testimony of witnesses to be introduced, as to his connection with the possession and transportation of whisky on the next day following the offense, namely, the 30th of October, 1925.
Certain state officers testified, in substance, that at a certain place in Spartanburg county, on the afternoon preceding the 29th October, 1925, they had located certain mash, commonly spoken of as "beer," which is used in the distillation of whisky. On the 29th of October, they returned and found that the mash had been removed, but followed a trail which led down to a distillery in full operation. About 40 or 50 feet from the distillery, near a freshly made but well-defined path which led from the distillery, they found one white man, the defendant Walter Johnson, and two colored men, the defendants Mat Lynch and Robert Johnson. Walter Johnson was standing up and talking to the two colored men who were sitting down. When discovered, these three men immediately ran. The officers testified that there was no other person at the distillery. They found a quart of whisky near the place where they found the three defendants. There was some further evidence which is not pertinent to the question presented in this court.
The defendants Mat Lynch and Walter Johnson testified that Walter Johnson was out rabbit hunting and had heard about this "beer" being located upon his father's land, and that they went up to where the still was, looking for this "beer," and at the distillery they found a man named Claude Johnson, who had on white overalls, "soiled and very dirty," and who disappeared before the officers came. They testified that they saw no whisky and had nothing to do with the operation of the distillery.
When the defendant Walter Johnson was on the witness stand, the court permitted the district attorney to cross-examine him in reference to his being found by the officers the next day (October 30th) in a car driven by one George Sherbert, coming from the direction of this distillery, with three gallons of whisky in the car. The court also permitted the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lovely, Cr. No. 17107.
...certiorari denied; Breedin v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 778, 780; Tincher v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 18, 20; Lynch v. United States, 4 Cir., 12 F.2d 193; Samuels v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 536, Ann.Cas. 1917A, 711; Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 251 F. 440; Jones v. United......
-
Weiss v. United States
...Nash v. United States, 5 Cir., 186 F. 489, reversed. 6 Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 14 S.Ct. 26, 37 L.Ed. 996; Lynch v. United States, 4 Cir., 12 F.2d 193; United States v. Sebo, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 889; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 683, pp. 1091, 1093 and note 68, p. 1096 and note 73, §......
-
U.S.A v. Green
...involved in the case”); United States v. Crowe, 188 F.2d 209, 212 (7th Cir.1951) (citing Tuffanelli and Gianotos ); Lynch v. United States, 12 F.2d 193, 194 (4th Cir.1926) (“The general rule is that, where a defendant is on trial for one offense, evidence of separate and distinct offenses i......
-
United States v. Spica
...F.2d 281; Gianotos v. United States, (9 Cir. 1939) 104 F.2d 929; Simpkins v. United States, (4 Cir. 1935) 78 F.2d 594; Lynch v. United States, (4 Cir. 1926) 12 F.2d 193; Crinnian v. United States, (6 Cir. 1924) 1 F.2d 643; State v. Bersch, 276 Mo. 397, 207 S.W. 809; 8 R.C.L., p. 206, § This......