Schwartz v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 4049. |
| Citation | 294 F. 528 |
| Parties | SCHWARTZ v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Leonard Brown, of San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
W. C Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex. (John D Hartman, U.S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
The information in this case contained three counts, which respectively, charged Paul R. Schwartz, Forest Morgan, and Frank Mazurek with unlawfully, etc., having in their possession described intoxicating liquor, with unlawfully etc., manufacturing, for beverage purposes, described intoxicating liquor, and with unlawfully, etc., having in their possession and under their control described property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, then and there intending to use said property in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The three defendants were convicted. Schwartz alone brings the case to this court by writ of error.
The defendants excepted to the overruling of an objection made by them to the admission of evidence as to stills, mash, and intoxicating liquor found in a house on a search thereof without a search warrant, after the officers making the search had from the outside seen a still in the house through an open door thereof. The ground of the objection was that the house was the home of Morgan, used by him as his dwelling and home, and that the same was illegally invaded by a search without a search warrant. The defendants also excepted to the overruling of a motion, made by them upon the conclusion of the evidence offered by the government, to instruct the jury to find a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that evidence showed that the dwelling occupied by the defendant Morgan was searched without a legal search warrant being issued, and that, except the evidence so obtained, there was no evidence showing that defendants were guilty of the offenses charged in the information.
There was no evidence tending to prove, and, so far as appears there was no claim, that the house in question was the home of Schwartz, or was used by him as a dwelling place. The ground upon which the above-mentioned objection and motion were based was not available to Schwartz. The admissibility of the evidence against Schwartz was not affected by the circumstance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newfield v. Ryan
...reasonable or unreasonable, as to their persons, or their properties. Fuller v. United States (C.C.A.) 31 F.(2d) 747; Schwartz v. United States (C.C.A.) 294 F. 528; Tritico v. United States (C.C.A.) 4 F.(2d) 664, 665; Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 33 S.Ct. 572, 57 L.Ed. 919, 47 L.......
-
Cradle v. United States
...at page 803, 804; Lusco v. United States (C.C.A.) 287 F. 69; Remus v. United States (C.C.A.) 291 F. 501 at page 510, 511; Schwartz v. United States (C.C.A.) 294 F. 528; Goldberg v. United States (C.C.A.) 297 F. 98, at page 101; Lewis v. United States (C.C.A.) 6 F.(2d) 222, at page 223; Rose......
-
Holt v. United States
...S., 15 F.(2d) 740 (C. C. A. 8); Cantrell v. U. S., 15 F.(2d) 953 (C. C. A. 5); Goldberg v. U. S., 297 F. 98 (C. C. A. 5); Schwartz v. U. S., 294 F. 528 (C. C. A. 5); Chicco v. U. S., 284 F. 434 (C. C. A. 4); and compare also Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 786, and Newingham v. ......
-
Tritico v. United States
...though it be assumed that the search would have been in violation of the rights of the occupant if there had been one. Schwartz v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 528. But there was no occupant of the premises, and so the privacy of the home was not invaded. Under the facts, the protection ......