Nancy v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4886.,4886. |
| Citation | 16 F.2d 872 |
| Parties | NANCY et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Raine Ewell, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.
This case is similar to that of White v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 870, and presents the same questions for consideration, excepting that in the present case sentence was not imposed upon the conviction on each count, but a single sentence of imprisonment for the term of five years was imposed.
Referring to the fact that no fine was imposed, and that the judgment was general and was not directed as to either count, it is contended that it was not a judgment authorized under the second count, which specifies that the sentence must be both fine and imprisonment, and that on the face of the record the court must have imposed sentence under count 1 and no sentence under count 2, and that therefore the judgment should be reversed. But that conclusion does not follow. The sentence was one which might have been imposed under either count, and it is to be presumed that it was imposed under the count which charged an offense to which the sentence was applicable. Nor in any event can the plaintiffs in error assert that the omission of a fine is a matter of which they can claim advantage as a ground of reversal. Bartholomew v. United States (C. C. A.) 177 F. 902.
Also without merit is the contention that there was repugnancy in the averments of the first count in charging that the defendants did both purchase and sell three bindles of morphine. Either a purchase, or a sale, or both, might have been proven. Simpson v. United States (C. C. A.) 229 F. 940; Foster v. United States (C. C. A.) 11 F.(2d) 100.
The alleged error assigned to the ruling of the court as to the admission of testimony elicited from one of the plaintiffs in error on cross-examination is not reviewable, in the absence of a bill of exceptions We find no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
* Rehearing denied January 31, 1927.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McQuaid v. United States
...denied, 1949, 336 U.S. 926, 69 S. Ct. 647, 93 L.Ed. 1088; see, also, McDowell v. Swope, 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 856; Nancy v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 872), or on objection by defendant (Egan v. United States, 1923, 52 App.D.C. 384, 397, 398, 287 F. 958, 971, 972; see, also, Murp......
-
Cook v. United States
...v. United States, 6 Cir., 1910, 177 F. 902, certiorari denied 1910, 217 U.S. 608, 30 S.Ct. 697, 54 L.Ed. 901; Nancy v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 872; Flynn v. United States, 7 Cir., 1931, 50 F.2d 1021; Jordan v. United States, 4 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 4, certiorari denied 1932, 287 ......
-
United States v. Knight, Cr. No. 10696.
...U.S. 608, 30 S.Ct. 697, 54 L.Ed. 901; Cook v. U. S., 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 567; Jordon v. U. S., 4 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 4; Nancy v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 872. The reasoning in these cases is that the defendant was not harmed by the technical defect and that the "complaint in that reg......
-
McDowell v. Swope, 12486.
...given less than is provided for by the statute, he cannot be heard to complain as the injury is not his but the public's. Nancy v. United States, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 872; Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 567, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 926, 69 S.Ct. 647, 93 L.Ed. 1088. This defect, too, ......