Ramsey v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3404. |
| Citation | 268 F. 825 |
| Parties | RAMSEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Abe Cohn and Jesse Edgington, both of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
Thomas J. Walsh, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn. (W. D. Kyser U.S. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of selling distilled spirits for beverage purposes on July 12, 1919, in of the War-Time Prohibition Act, Nov. 21, 1918, c. 212, subd. 4 (Comp. St Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 3115 11/12f-3115 11/12ggg). This writ is to review the judgment.
A motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the War-Time Prohibition Act (a) was unconstitutional, and (b) had ceased to be operative, was overruled. A motion for new trial was denied. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction is challenged, and complaint is made of the exclusion of certain proffered evidence. There was no exception to the charge of the jury, which is not sent up.
1. The contentions of plaintiff in error made under the motion in arrest of judgment have been foreclosed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146, 40 Sup.Ct. 106, 64 L.Ed. 194.
2. There was no motion to direct verdict. We are therefore under no obligation to consider the sufficiency of the evidence although we may do so. Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 194, 29 Sup.Ct. 260, 53 L.Ed. 465, 15 Ann.Cas 392; Sylvia v. United States (C.C.A. 6) 264 F. 593, 594. There was substantial evidence tending to sustain the conviction. We cannot weigh the testimony. Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 345, 26 Sup.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 6 Ann.Cas. 392; Kelly v. United States (C.C.A. 6) 258 F. 392, 406, 407, 169 C.C.A. 408; West v. United States (C.C.A. 6) 258 F. 413, 421, 169 C.C.A. 429.
3. The motion for new trial was addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial judge. This discretion was not abused in the denial of the motion, and we therefore cannot review the exercise of discretion in so doing. Robinson v. Van Hooser (C.C.A. 6) 196 F. 620, 116 C.C.A. 294.
4. The evidence excluded was offered by way of cross-examination to show the motive and intent of the respective witnesses in their activities with reference to the sale in question. There had already been cross-examination evidently addressed to the same purpose. Plainly there was no abuse of discretion in rejecting further examination in the same general line. Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Bobo (C.C.A. 6) 232 F. 708, 712, 146 C.C.A. 634.
5. The record contains what appears to be a suggestion that the conviction ought not to stand, or, perhaps more specifically that the government is estopped from prosecuting the case on the ground that the commission of the offense, if any, was procured by one of the witnesses referred to, acting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'BRIEN v. United States
...U. S., 270 F. 31 (C. C. A. 2); Farley v. U. S., 269 F. 721 (C. C. A. Wash.); Saucedo v. U. S., 268 F. 830 (C. C. A. Tex.); Ramsey v. U. S., 268 F. 825 (C. C. A. Tenn.); Partan v. U. S., 261 F. 515 (C. C. A. Or.); Fetters v. U. S., 260 F. 142 (C. C. A. Cal.); Goldstein v. U. S., 256 F. 813 (......
- State v. Kirkbride
-
State v. Webster
...sustained. (Goldstein v. United States, 256 F. 813, 168 C. C. A. 159; Fetters v. United States, 260 F. 142, 171 C. C. A. 178; Ramsey v. United States, 268 F. 825; Saucedo United States, 268 F. 830; Farley v. United States, 269 F. 721; Borck v. State (Ala.), 39 So. 580; Swoope v. State, 12 A......
-
City of St Louis v. Hellscher
... ... render her incompetent as a witness. Saucedo v. United ... States, 268 F. 820; Ramsey v. United States, ... 268 F. 825; Fiunken v. United States, 265 F ... ...