Pounds v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 298,298 |
| Citation | 18 S.Ct. 729,171 U.S. 35,43 L.Ed. 62 |
| Parties | POUNDS v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The indictment under which the defendant (plaintiff in error) was tried contained 15 counts. He was convicted on the sixth count, which read as follows:
'The grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that at the time and place and within the jurisdiction aforesaid the said George Pounds unlawfully did conceal and aid in the concealment of distilled spirits on which the tax had not been paid, which said spirits had been removed to a place other than the distillery warehouse provided by law; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'
The count was drawn under section 3296 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that:
'Whenever any person removes, or aids or abets in the removal of any distilled spirits on which the tax has not been paid, to a place other than the distillery warehouse provided by law, or conceals, or aids in the concealment of any spirits so removed, or removes, or aids or abets in the removal of any distilled spirits from any distillery warehouse or other warehouse for distilled spirits authorized by law, in any manner other than is provided by law, or conceals, or aids in the concealment of any spirits so removed, he shall be liable to a penalty of double the tax imposed on such distilled spirits so removed or concealed, and shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than three months nor more than three years.'
After the verdict, and before the judgment, the plaintiff in error filed his motion in arrest of judgment, as follows:
'Now comes the defendant after the rendition of the verdict of the jury finding him guilty as charged in the sixth count of the indictment and before judgment and sentence, and moves the court to arrest the judgment in this case upon the ground that the sixth count of the indictment is too vague and uncertain to authorize a judgment and sentence against the defendant.'
Afterwards an amended motion in arrest of judgment was filed, as follows:
'By leave of the court first had and obtained the defendant amends his motion in arrest of judgment by adding the following grounds:
The overruling of this motion is assigned as error.
J. A. W. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Ass't Atty. Gen. Boyd, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKENNA, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 3271 of the Revised Statutes provides that: 'Every distiller shall provide, at his own expense, a warehouse, to be situated on and to constitute a part of his distillery premises, and to be used only for the storage of distilled spirits of his w n manufacture until the tax thereon shall be paid; * * * and such warehouse,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Johnson
...7 Cir., 60 F.2d 192; Guzik v. United States, 7 Cir., 54 F.2d 618; Wygant v. United States, 9 Cir., 6 F.2d 148; Pounds v. United States, 171 U.S. 35, 18 S.Ct. 729, 43 L.Ed. 62; Ledbetter v. U. S., 170 U. S. 606, 18 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed. 15 On the "usurping of the province of the jury" Wigmore ......
-
Capone v. United States
...S. 306, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S. 606, 18 S. Ct. 774, 42 L. Ed. 1162; Pounds v. United States, 171 U. S. 35, 18 S. Ct. 729, 43 L. Ed. 62; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 28 L. Ed. 428, 52 L. Ed. 681; Bartell v. United States, 227 ......
-
United States v. Thompson
... ... defendant whether the charges relate to whisky or brandy ... Except for the fact that 'designated place of deposit ... provided by law' has been substituted for 'the ... distillery warehouse provided by law,' the indictment ... follows the form approved in Pounds v. U.S., 171 ... U.S. 35, 38, 18 Sup.Ct. 729, 730, 43 L.Ed. 62, in which case ... it is said: ... 'The ... offense was purely statutory. In such case it is generally ... sufficient to charge the defendant with acts coming within ... the statutory description in the substantial words ... ...
-
United States v. Achtner
...against double jeopardy. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 83, 28 S.Ct. 428, 52 L.Ed. 681; Pounds v. United States, 171 U.S. 35, 38, 18 S.Ct. 729, 43 L.Ed. 62; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed 1162; Potter v. United States, 155 U.S. 438, 4......