Matchok v. United States, 4603.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 4603.,4603. |
| Citation | 60 F.2d 266 |
| Parties | MATCHOK et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Sidney Simandl, of Newark, N. J., and I. Faerber Goldenhorn, of Jersey City, N. J., for appellants.
Phillip Forman, U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J., and John Grimshaw, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Paterson, N. J.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Matchok and Dulleck were indicted, tried, and convicted for possessing and passing counterfeited money with intent to defraud, in violation of section 265, title 18, USCA. On appeal they assign numerous errors. The first is the court's refusal (at the beginning of the trial) to hold the counts bad in that they do not charge offenses against the United States. True, they fail to do so in precise words; yet they clearly charge such offenses by force of the facts alleged. The defendants could not possibly mistake their meaning or suffer any uncertainty as to the offenses for which they were on trial.
Another assignment charges error to the court (at the end of the trial) in imposing sentences of imprisonment alone when the act provides for fine and imprisonment. The defendants rely upon the general rule of law that a judgment rendered by a court in a criminal case must conform strictly to the statute. In re Graham, 138 U. S. 461, 11 S. Ct. 363, 34 L. Ed. 1051. They cite Woodruff v. United States (C. C.) 58 F. 766, in support of their proposition that the sentences, omitting fines, are void even if beneficial to them. This decision, seemingly, is to that effect, though the cases cited do not support it; for instance, a sentence which imposed fine and imprisonment under a statute which prescribed fine or imprisonment was held void, as it should be.
However, the defendants silently stood by, accepted sentences less severe than those imposed by the statute, made no objection and noted no exception. If the sentences involve error, the defendants have not shown it is prejudicial error, for which alone a reversal would be justified. Nor have they shown, in the absence of exception, a right to have the matter reviewed.
We find that all assignments of error intermediate the two we have discussed are, with one exception, without substance. That one is addressed to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict of acquittal as to both defendants.
Matchok tendered a ten dollar bill for drinks at a saloon in Passaic and another ten dollar bill at a gasoline...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. United States
...Jordan v. United States, 4 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 4, certiorari denied 1932, 287 U.S. 633, 53 S.Ct. 84, 77 L.Ed. 549; Matchok v. United States, 3 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 266; Widener v. Harris, 4 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 956. These cases are a complete answer to the apprehension expressed by appellant ......
-
United States v. A. Steiner, Inc., 8740.
...United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 30 S.Ct. 15, 54 L.Ed. 87; Flynn v. United States, 7 Cir., 50 F.2d 1021; Matchok v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 266. A contrary view of the punishment provision of a criminal statute would be absurd and violate the plain intention of Congres......
-
United States v. Gilbert, 5471
...were continuous. The defendants could not possibly suffer any uncertainty as to the offenses with which they are charged. Matchok v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 266. In the case of Craig v. United States, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 816, 822, the court used the following language and cited pertinent......
-
Farnsworth v. State
...alone would require a reversal. Nor has he shown in the absence of an objection a right to have the matter reviewed. Matchok v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 266, a case clearly in We believe the jury intended the minimum sentence but overlooked, as did the trial court, the imposition of t......