Maddelin v. United States, 4466.

• Decision Date: 09 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 4466.,4466.
• Citation: 46 F.2d 266
• Parties: MADDELIN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

46 F.2d 266 (1931)

MADDELIN et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4466.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 9, 1931.

Harold J. Bandy, of East St. Louis, Ill., for appellants.

Harold G. Baker, U. S. Atty., and Ralph F. Lesemann, both of East St. Louis, Ill., for the United States.

Before ALSCHULER, SPARKS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

Appellants were jointly prosecuted and convicted with Margaret Maddelin and Sam Mumper on three counts of an indictment charging them with conspiracy to violate the provisions of the National Prohibition Act, with the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor, and with the illegal possession of the same. Dan Dominic Maddelin, referred to hereafter as Dan, was sentenced to serve a prison term of a year and a day on each of the first and second counts, which terms were to be served concurrently; and he was fined $500 on the third count. Joe Maddelin, referred to hereafter as Joe, was sentenced to serve a jail term of six months on each of the first and second counts, the terms to be served concurrently; and he was fined $300 on the third count. The sole question presented by each appellant is whether there was sufficient evidence presented to warrant the trial court in submitting the cause to the jury on either count. Talmadge v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 378.

In determining, on appeal, whether the evidence is sufficient to authorize a submission to the jury, the court will take the view of the evidence, and the inferences reasonably and justifiably to be drawn therefrom, which is most favorable to the government. France v. United States, 164 U. S. 676, 17 S. Ct. 219, 41 L. Ed. 595; Reid v. United States (C. C. A.) 44 F.(2d) 51.

It is seldom that a charge of conspiracy can be proved by direct evidence, and such a charge is usually established by proof of facts and circumstances from which the existence of a conspiracy is inferred. If such inferences are natural and reasonable they will sustain the conviction. Jelke v. United States (C. C. A.) 255 F. 264; Anstess v. United States (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 594; Zeiger v. United States (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 241.

From the record we gather the following facts: Appellants are brothers, and during April, May, and June, 1930, resided on adjoining lots a short distance southwest of Collinsville, Ill. Both houses and lots had been owned by Dan, but previous to April, 1930, Dan had sold the north house and lot to Joe. At a distance of about two city blocks south of these houses a public highway runs east and west. From this highway an unimproved road runs north to the north line of Joe's lot and ends there. Appellants' houses are on the east side of this unimproved road and face west. A private driveway extends from the unimproved road between and to the rear of the houses. Immediately west of the north and south road, and parallel to it, is a hedge fence, and west of the hedge is a woods. No houses except appellants' are located on either side of the north and south road.

On April 1, 1930, a government agent went to Dan's home, and saw him standing in his back yard near an old empty concrete vat which was fifteen feet deep and about ten or twelve feet long. It had been recently repaired, and Dan told the agent that it had formerly been used in connection with a still, but that he was repairing it for use as a cistern. Dan had a key to Joe's house, but said Joe did not live there. With Dan's permission the agent went into the basement of Joe's house, and found there a new upright steam boiler, similar to those used with stills, and twelve or fifteen new gas pipes of different lengths, all knuckled up. There was a vat four or five feet deep, ten feet long, and five or six feet wide, and forty sacks marked "corn sugar."

On June 10, government agents visited the place and found a freshly cut gap in the hedge west of the road. It was about eight feet wide and almost directly opposite Joe's house. On the night of June 12 government agents again visited the place. Shortly after their arrival an automobile came from the south and turned eastwardly into the driveway between the houses, and stopped. The automobile lights were then turned out, and the occupant went into one of the houses, but which one the agents did not see.

In about a minute or so afterward a Ford coupé came from the south and turned up to the gap in the hedge on the west side of the road, and stopped. The occupant turned his automobile lights out, and with a flash-light in his hand went into the rear door of Dan's house....