De Moss v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| Decision Date | 22 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 3688.,3688. |
| Citation | 14 F.2d 1021 |
| Parties | William DE MOSS, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
John B. Boddie, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
Ernest L. Duck, of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced upon an indictment charging him, among other things, with having purchased from "persons unknown, in the city of Chicago, a quantity of cocaine hydrochloride," in violation of the so-called Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act. Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q. Support for the conviction rests entirely upon the presumption which arose from De Moss' possession of such narcotics.
Section 1 of the act reads: "It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, * * * any of the aforesaid drugs except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps from any of the aforesaid drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found."
Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that the government failed to prove the venue; that the presumption referred to in the foregoing section does not extend to the place of purchase. The precise question has been considered and very fully treated in Brightman v. United States (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 532, and with the ultimate conclusion there reached we agree.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. United States, 17025.
...United States, 7 F. (2d) 532. Cain v. United States, 8 Cir., 12 F.(2d) 580. Hood v. United States 9 Cir., 14 F.(2d) 925. De Moss v. United States 7 Cir., 14 F.(2d) 1021. But we are of opinion that upon the facts of this case the Court was right." (Emphasis The court below had made the follo......
-
Casey v. United States
...the decided cases (see Brightman v. United States C. C. A. 7 F.2d 532; Cain v. United States C. C. A. 12 F. 2d 580; and De Moss v. United States C. C. A. 14 F.2d 1021), to grant it would seem to rob the statute of all efficacy. If, independently of the statutory presumption, the government ......
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Linstead