Orban v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 March 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4687,4730.,4687
• Citation: Orban v. United States, 18 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1927)
• Parties: ORBAN v. UNITED STATES (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

18 F.2d 374 (1927)

ORBAN v.UNITED STATES(two cases).

Nos. 4687, 4730.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 29, 1927.

S. Homer Ferguson, of Detroit, Mich. (Vincent M. Brennan, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Chas. A. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich. (Delos G. Smith, U. S. Atty., and Wallace Visscher, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.

Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.

The first of these proceedings is based on an injunction, restraining Orban from "using, maintaining, or assisting in using or maintaining," certain premises in Detroit as a place where intoxicating liquor was "manufactured, sold, kept, or bartered, in violation" of the National Prohibition Act(Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq.).This order was issued June 18, 1923, and was served on Orban July 7, 1923.In November of the same year he was arrested on an information filed by the district attorney, and brought into court to show cause, if any he had, why he should not be punished for contempt of court.The information was supported by an affidavit showing sales of liquor in violation of the injunction.On the hearing he was found guilty.

It is said that the judgment is wrong because the information failed to allege willful disobedience of the injunction, did not sufficiently apprise defendant of the charge, and did not call upon him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.We do not so construe the information.It alleged facts clearly implying a willful disobedience of the injunction, and definitely stated the particulars of the charge, praying that defendant be brought before the court to show cause, if any he had, why he should not be punished for contempt.Nor was it defective, as counsel contend, in failing to show that defendant knew of the injunction.A copy of the order, with the marshal's return of service on the defendant, was filed with and made a part of the information.This was a sufficient showing of notice under Welling v. United States (6 C. C. A.)9 F.(2d) 292.

The proceeding was authorized under the Gompers Case, 221 U. S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874, andPino v. United States (C. C. A.)278 F. 479, and there is no basis for the contention that defendant was misled as to its nature, or, if so, suffered any injury as a result thereof.The evidence of the prohibition agent was admissible.The circumstances under which he made the purchases were clearly within the methods approved in Goldman v. United States (6 C. C. A.)220 F. 57.It is not necessary to determine what weight it to be given to evidence of but one act committed in violation of the injunction, since there was proof of more than one, all tending to show defendant's use of the premises in violation of the injunction.Nor is there any merit in the suggestion that the punishment was infamous.The sentence did not impose hard labor, and commitment was in the Detroit House of Correction, not such an institution as of itself denotes infamy.United States v. Moreland, 258 U. S. 433, 42 S. Ct. 368, 66 L. Ed. 700, 24 A. L. R. 992.

In the second case there was a charge in...