Morgan v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 2143. |
| Parties | MORGAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. B Casey, of Wheeling, W. Va., for plaintiff in error.
T. A Brown, U.S. Atty., and H. D. Matthews, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Parkersburg, W. Va.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
Three informations charging defendant with violations of the National Prohibition Law were consolidated and tried together. The defendant was convicted on count 2 of information No. 6995, charging a sale of intoxicating liquor to J. J. Doerr, and other persons unknown, and sentenced to imprisonment thereon for six months; on count 5 of the same information, charging a sale of intoxicating liquor to Vincent Dorich and other persons unknown, and sentenced to imprisonment thereon for an additional period of six months. The defendant was also convicted on information 7074 charging the unlawful sale of liquor to Leck C. Collins, and sentenced to an additional period of imprisonment of six months. On count 3 of information 7073, charging the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to additional imprisonment for six months; on counts 1 and 2 of the same information, charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the unlawful possession of property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs.
There is no merit in the appeal, except that upon one point, and on that the United States attorney concedes error.
It does not appear from the record that the defendant was arrested on the information, and therefore it was not necessary that the information should be supported by an affidavit, showing personal knowledge of facts constituting probable cause. Weeks v. United States, 216 F. 292, 132 C.C.A. 436 L.R.A. 1915B, 651, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 524. It is needless to restate the conclusive reasoning of the court in that case.
On every count there was abundant evidence to support the conviction. Indeed, the testimony of the defendant himself on material points corroborated the witnesses for the government.
The record does not support the statement that the court excluded evidence of the arrest of the government witness Hatcher on a charge, in the state court, of operating a still.
There was no reversible error in excluding the testimony of McConihay that at one time he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...counts. State v. Tobin, 31 Wyo. 355; in re Nielson, 131 U.S. 176; Reynolds v. U.S., 280 F. 1; Patrilo v. U.S., 7 F. (2nd) 804; Morgan v. U.S. 294 F. 82. The court erred in refusing to grant a continuance defendant, the affidavit therefor, being within the requirements of Sec. 6416 C. S. W. ......
-
Schroeder v. United States
...to the transportation, the offense is single, and not double. Miller v. United States (C. C. A.) 300 F. 529, 534; Morgan v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 82, 84; Rossman v. United States (C. C. A.) 280 F. 950, 953; Reynolds v. United States (C. C. A.) 280 F. 1. And the law is settled that......
-
Aaronson v. United States
...by the statutes. See Carroll v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 167 F.2d 878; cf. In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 L.Ed. 118; Morgan v. United States, 4 Cir., 294 F. 82. 1 18 U.S.C.A. § 82 (now § 641): "Whoever shall take and carry away or take for his use, or for the use of another, with inte......
-
Rouda v. United States
...elements necessary to it were included in the count for manufacture. Reynolds v. United States, 280 F. 1 (C. C. A. 6); Morgan v. United States, 294 F. 82 (C. C. A. 4); Schroeder v. United States, 7 F.(2d) 60 (C. C. A. 2). We find it unnecessary to consider whether or not the entry into the ......