Peterson v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4147. |
| Citation | 297 F. 1002 |
| Parties | PETERSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John F. Dore and Francis C. Reagan, both of Seattle, Wash., and L V. Ray, of Seward, Alaska, for plaintiff in error.
Sherman Duggan, U.S. Atty., of Anchorage, Alaska, and Harry G McCain, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Cordova, Alaska.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Peterson was convicted before a commissioner in Alaska under a complaint which charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, whisky, in violation of the provisions of the act of Congress approved February 14, 1917, commonly known as the Alaska Dry Law, 39 St.L.c. 53, p. 903 (Comp. St 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 3643b-3643r). Upon appeal to the District Court he was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail in Alaska and to pay a fine of $1,000 and in default of the payment of the fine, to serve a term in the designated jail not to exceed one day for each $2 of the fine unpaid.
In the District Court counsel for Peterson contended that the court was without jurisdiction, in that there could be no prosecution for a felony except by indictment by a grand jury, and also upon the ground that the complaint on which the charge was based was signed 'C. W. Mossman' and not 'C. W. Mossman, Deputy Marshal.'
The complaint in its material part was as follows:
'C. F. Peterson is accused by C. W. Mossman, Deputy United States Marshal, in this complaint of the crime of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, committed as follows.'
Specific allegations of jurisdictional facts follow, and the whole complaint is signed 'C. W. Mossman.' Appended is a verification wherein C. W. Mossman, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says that the 'foregoing complaint is true, and that I am a deputy United States marshal for the Third Division of the Territory of Alaska. ' The verification is signed 'C. W. Mossman' and is sworn to before W. H. Rager, United States commissioner and ex officio justice of the peace. We regard the accusation as directly made by one described as a deputy marshal, and, being sufficiently verified, it became an authentic charge. It is not necessary to decide that a complaint cannot be made by a private citizen.
It is error to assume that under the statute in Alaska the possession of intoxicating liquor (unless the same was procured and is possessed as expressly provided in the act of Congress) is a felony, for, by express provision of section 1 of the act, one having such possession is guilty of a misdemeanor; and by section 28 of the act prosecutions for violation of the provisions of the act shall be on information or upon indictment.
It is argued that the court should have directed a verdict for defendant. The evidence was that on September 21, 1922 several deputy United States marshals saw a row boat with one man in it. The man came ashore, and immediately thereafter went back into the boat and down three or four miles below the point where he was first seen. The officers saw him take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marron v. United States
...v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 413, 417; U. S. v. Rembert (D. C.) 284 F. 996; McBride v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 284 F. 416, 418; Peterson v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 297 F. 1002. As incident to a lawful arrest, the officer may search the prisoner and seize evidence of his guilt. U. S. v. Wilson (C. C.) 163 F......
-
Peeples v. District of Columbia
...168 F. (335; Ex parte Barclay, C.C.Me., 153 F. 669. 5. Anderson v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun.App., 48 A.2d 710. 6. Peterson v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 1002; Berkenfield v. People, 191 Ill. 272, 61 N.E. 96; People ex rel. Gately v. Sage, 13 App.Div. 135, 43 N.Y.S. 372; State v. Pe......
-
Lewis v. United States, 7428.
...in Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 16 S. Ct. 895, 40 L. Ed. 1090, Mangum v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 289 F. 213, and Petersen v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 1002." The appellant has made no attempt to point out in what respects the evidence introduced before the jury concerning the volu......
-
Gin Bock Sing v. United States
...v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 16 S. Ct. 895, 40 L. Ed. 1090, Mangum v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 213, and Petersen v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 1002. Error is assigned upon a ruling permitting the prosecution to propound certain questions to a rebuttal witness. Defendant test......