Nosowitz v. United States, 224.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Citation | 282 F. 575 |
| Docket Number | 224. |
| Parties | NOSOWITZ et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1922 |
282 F. 575
NOSOWITZ et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 224.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 27, 1922
[282 F. 576]
Morris Kamber, of New York City (Otho S. Bowling, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Ralph C. Greene, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y. (Henry J. Walsh, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y., of Counsel), for the United States.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges. 0** [282 F. 577] MANTON, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs in error were charged in an information with an offense in that on or about the 22d of December, 1920, within the jurisdiction of the Eastern district, they did 'unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly manufacture and possess for sale and for some time prior thereto sell a certain machine, contrivance, or still designated or intended for use in the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors,' in violation of section 18 of title 2 of the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 313). At the end of the government's proof, the plaintiffs in error moved to dismiss the information, which motion was denied. The plaintiffs in error offered no evidence.
Two witnesses were called on behalf of the government. The first, a so-called prohibition enforcement agent, testified that he went to 8 Noll street, which was a factory building and had the name 'S. Nosowitz & Son' upon it. He describes it as a two-story house, old-fashioned, with a factory on the parlor floor. In the factory he saw some galvanized open cans. He talked with Mr. Nosowitz whom he describes as the father, and asked him what he was making these vessels for, to which he replied, 'You know.' The witness then said, 'They can make whisky, you know,' and the reply was, 'Yes.' He thereupon asked him to sell the witness one of them, and he said 'No,' that he sold for wholesale only. That was all the conversation had. Whereupon a search warrant was issued and a seizure made, resulting in the prohibition agent taking some copper coils or pipe, screw caps, and some unfinished copper vessels, and they were placed in a warehouse.
The same witness visited the premises of one Grossman at 494 Ninth avenue, New York City, and there seized two alleged stills, one of which was produced in court and marked for identification. He was thereupon asked if that was the same type of vessel as was seized at the premises of Nosowitz, and he said it was. He then related a conversation had with the elder Nosowitz about these 'stills.' In this last conversation, the witness told Nosowitz that the vessels were stills, and that he found two of them in Grossman's premises on Ninth avenue, and further that Grossman told the witness that he had purchased them from Nosowitz, for which he said he had a check showing payment, and that Grossman had them in his store for sale, to which the elder Nosowitz replied that he sells them in lots to agents, and 'they may be all over,' and 'sold as well as in Grossman's. ' This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lovely, Cr. No. 17107.
...by statute) that to convict one of crime requires the proof of an intention to commit a crime." Nosowitz v. United States, 2 Cir., 282 F. 575, 578. 77 F. Supp. 622 Therefore, in a charge of rape, and in a charge of the included lesser offense of assault with intent to rape, intent is an Of ......
-
Carlisle v. U.S., 949247
...evidence. See Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 659 (1896); Cady v. United States, 293 F. 829 (CADC 1923); Nosowitz v. United States, 282 F. 575, 578 (CA2 1922). 9 They have also long exercised their inherent power to set aside a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence sua spon......
-
Record Revolution No. 6 v. City of Parma, Ohio, C80-38.
...to be used for illegal production of alcohol. The Second Circuit commented on the intent element in Nosowitz, et al. v. United States, 282 F. 575 (2d Cir. 1922). The Court held that the mere manufacture and sale of an article which could be used for an illegal purpose would not inculpate th......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co., 11365.
...v. U. S., 10 Cir., 64 F.2d 324; Nicola v. U. S., 3 Cir., 72 F.2d 780; Paul v. U. S., 3 Cir., 79 F.2d 561; Nosowitz v. U. S., 2 Cir., 282 F. 575. 24 F. Supp. 577 In the following cases the appellate court, having decided that the motions of the defendant for a directed verdict on the ground ......
-
United States v. Lovely, Cr. No. 17107.
...by statute) that to convict one of crime requires the proof of an intention to commit a crime." Nosowitz v. United States, 2 Cir., 282 F. 575, 578. 77 F. Supp. 622 Therefore, in a charge of rape, and in a charge of the included lesser offense of assault with intent to rape, intent is an Of ......
-
Carlisle v. U.S., 949247
...evidence. See Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 659 (1896); Cady v. United States, 293 F. 829 (CADC 1923); Nosowitz v. United States, 282 F. 575, 578 (CA2 1922). 9 They have also long exercised their inherent power to set aside a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence sua spon......
-
Record Revolution No. 6 v. City of Parma, Ohio, C80-38.
...to be used for illegal production of alcohol. The Second Circuit commented on the intent element in Nosowitz, et al. v. United States, 282 F. 575 (2d Cir. 1922). The Court held that the mere manufacture and sale of an article which could be used for an illegal purpose would not inculpate th......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co., 11365.
...v. U. S., 10 Cir., 64 F.2d 324; Nicola v. U. S., 3 Cir., 72 F.2d 780; Paul v. U. S., 3 Cir., 79 F.2d 561; Nosowitz v. U. S., 2 Cir., 282 F. 575. 24 F. Supp. 577 In the following cases the appellate court, having decided that the motions of the defendant for a directed verdict on the ground ......