Rewis v. United States, 16172.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16172.,16172. |
| Citation | 242 F.2d 508 |
| Parties | Vernon Clyatt REWIS and David Charles Johnson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A. M. Crabtree, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants.
E. Coleman Madsen, John L. Briggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
By a three-count indictment, appellants were charged with violations of Title 26 U.S.C.A., §§ 2810, 2834, 2833. From a conviction upon the third count of the indictment under § 2833 for carrying on the business of a distiller without having given bond as required by law, this appeal is taken.
The defendants were found by agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit at a still in Nassau County, Florida. It was not operating. The appellant Johnson was chopping wood and the appellant Rewis was about to begin using a soldering iron. Rewis stated that the still belonged to him and that Johnson "just came down there to help". Nearby were grain and water in barrels which were not yet in the mash stage. Appellants took exception to the portion of the Court's charge instructing the jury that they might be found guilty if they had commenced the business of distiller even though actual distillation had not been made. We think the instruction proper. It was contended that a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted because the still was not operating. We think the evidence was ample to sustain the conviction. Appellants contend that there should be no conviction absent affirmative proof that the appellants had not given bond as distillers as required by law. Such proof is not required as a part of the Government's case. It will be presumed in situations such as there is here that no bond was given. Rossi v. United States, 289 U.S. 89, 53 S.Ct. 532, 77 L.Ed. 1051.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Arendale
...have found no decision indicating that a still is readily capable of being set up when it has no water or heat supply. Rewis v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 242 F.2d 508, stands only for the rule that conviction for carrying on the business of a distiller may be sustained even though actual ......
-
Burke v. United States, 24777.
...be completely operable before one may be said to be carrying on the business of a distiller. We rejected that notion in Rewis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 508. There we said that the Jury could find the Defendants guilty of carrying on the business of a distiller even though act......
-
Sims v. Alvis
... ... Clay SIMS, Petitioner, ... R. W. ALVIS, Warden, Respondent ... United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit ... March 29, 1957.242 F.2d ... ...
-
Anderson v. United States
...it was raided by the observing officers. The point that the "cap and reach arm" were not in place is controlled by Rewis v. United States, 242 F.2d 508 (5 Cir. 1959). See, also, Otto v. United States, 29 F.2d 504 (7 Cir. 1928). Cases cited by appellant are all factually different. Consideri......