Sharp v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3808. |
| Citation | 280 F. 86 |
| Parties | SHARP et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
C. S Hebert, H. L. Landfried, and Richard B. Otero, all of New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs in error.
L. H Burns, U.S. Atty., and L. P. Bryant, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty both of New Orleans, La.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
The nine plaintiffs in error were joined with other persons in an indictment containing five counts, which, respectively charged that they stole 80 drums of ethyl alcohol from a specified railroad car while the same was on the tracks of the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad, said alcohol then and there moving as and constituting part of an interstate shipment of freight, namely, a shipment of alcohol from a named shipper at New Orleans, La., to a named consignee at Kansas City, in the state of Missouri, via the Illinois Central Railroad Company; that they conspired to commit the offense charged in the first count; that they unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously received and had in possession alcohol described as in the first count, then and there knowing that it was taken, stolen, and carried away while moving as an interstate shipment as aforesaid; that they conspired to willfully and knowingly, without first obtaining a permit from the United States prohibition director at New Orleans, transport alcohol as described in the first count; and that they conspired to willfully and unlawfully possess alcohol described as in the first count.
One of the plaintiffs in error, who was convicted only on counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, complains of the overruling of a motion made by him alone to quash counts 4 and 5 of the indictment. The result of the trial kept that action of the court, assuming that it involved error, from being prejudicial to him or a ground of reversal in his behalf.
At the time of the occurrences charged, the alcohol in question was in a car on a track of the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad a public utility of the city of New Orleans, which had receipted for it, to be switched to the carrying line. The fact that the alcohol was still in the possession of the carrier which was to render only a switching service did not keep it from being an interstate shipment, within the meaning of the Act of February 13, 1913 (U.S. Compiled Stat. Sec. 8603), relating to larceny, etc., of goods in interstate commerce. The destination of the alcohol was fixed and certain from the time the shipper parted with possession and control of it, and the car containing it was launched on its way to another state by being committed to the switching line for delivery to the carrying line. The switching was the initial step in an interstate carriage. The court was not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroska v. United States
...Fifth Circuit, Williams v. U. S., 46 F.(2d) 731, 732; Benese v. U. S., 25 F.(2d) 231, 232; McLendon v. U. S., 14 F.(2d) 12, 15; Sharp v. U. S., 280 F. 86, 88, where evidence as to presence of liquor held nonprejudicial since appellant admitted its presence; Brown v. U. S., 257 F. 46, 51; Gr......
-
United States v. Berger
...Wolk v. United States, 94 F.2d 310 (8 Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 303 U.S. 658, 58 S.Ct. 763, 82 L.Ed. 1118 (1938); Sharp v. United States, 280 F. 86 (5 Cir. 1922), cert. denied, 260 U.S. 730, 43 S.Ct. 92, 67 L.Ed. 485 (1922); Lowery v. United States, 271 F. 946 (7 Cir. ...
-
Bird v. State
...(C. C. A.) 3 F.2d 791; Rulovitch v. United States, (C. C. A.) 286 F. 315; Goldberg v. United States, (C. C. A.) 297 F. 98; Sharp v. United States, (C. C. A.) 280 F. 86. If defendant wanted to rely upon the possession of a permit it was necessary for him under these authorities to introduce ......
-
Weinstein v. United States, 1936.
...negative averments." United States v. Scarneos (D. C.) 8 F.(2d) 320; Jelke v. United States, 255 F. 264, 166 C. C. A. 434; Sharp v. United States (C. C. A.) 280 F. 86; Goldberg v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 98; Altshuler v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) It is also assigned as error......