Stafford v. United States
| Decision Date | 31 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4011. |
| Citation | 300 F. 537 |
| Parties | STAFFORD et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles Fennell and King Swope, both of Lexington, Ky., for plaintiffs in error
Sawyer A. Smith, U.S. Atty., of Covington, Ky. (John E. Shepard and Rodney G. Bryson, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Covington, Ky on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, MACK, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted in the District Court on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charges a conspiracy unlawfully to transport 100 gallons of whisky in violation of section 3 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/2aa). The second count charges the unlawful transportation of 100 gallons of whisky for beverage purposes; such transportation being then and there prohibited and unlawful. The trial court overruled the demurrer to this indictment and also overruled 'a motion to quash the testimony and for the return of the property seized by prohibition agents J. M Wakefield and J. T. Tartar, acting without a search warrant or warrant of arrest.'
A bill of particulars was filed in which it was stated that the conspiracy alleged in the indictment took place on or about the 4th day of April, 1923, in Jassamine and Woodfield counties, Ky. That the whisky was contained in 16 five-gallon kegs and was transported in a Buick roadster along the public highways in said counties. The defendants offered no testimony, but at the close of the evidence for the government moved for a directed verdict, which motion was overruled and exceptions noted. The defendants were convicted and sentenced upon both counts.
The indictment in this case states facts sufficient to charge these defendants with a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and within the jurisdiction of the court, and also with the actual commission of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes within the Eastern district of Kentucky, and without reference whatever to the bill of particulars fully advised the defendants of the offenses charged and which they would be required to meet on the trial of the cause. Miller v. U.S., 300 F. 529, decided by this court June 30, 1924, and cases there cited. The motion 'to quash the testimony and return the property seized' was, under the facts proven in this case, properly overruled. Section 26, title 2 National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305, 315 (Comp. St. Ann Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/2mm)); Boyd v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 286 F. 930.
The defendants' plea of not guilty placed the burden upon the government to establish the guilt of the defendants upon each count of this indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden the government offered as witnesses the two prohibition enforcement officers who made the arrest. These witnesses testified that they were driving along the highway in an opposite direction from the direction in which these defendants were going; that when they passed the defendants they saw something covered over in the rear part of the automobile, and for that reason turned and followed it. The defendants, or one of them, drove the Buick roadster at about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spratley v. Commonwealth
...138 Va. 835, 122 S. E. 112; Woytek v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 272 S. W. 131; Murray v. State, 19 Ariz. 49, 165 P. 315; Stafford V. U. S. (C. C. A. Ky.) 300 F. 537; Howard v. State, 193 Ind. 599, 141 N. E. 341; Richardson v. State, 89 Tex, Cr. R. 17, 228 S. W. 1094; Walling v. State, 94 ......
-
Heartsill v. State
...manifested by any formal words. Lawlor v. Loewe, 2 Cir., 209 F. 721, 725; Id., 235 U.S. 522, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341; Stafford v. United States, 6 Cir., 300 F. 537; Burkhardt v. United States, 6 Cir., 13 F.2d 841; Goode v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 105; Coates v. United States, 9 Ci......
-
Telman v. United States, 883.
...by any formal words. Lawlor v. Loewe (C. C. A. 2) 209 F. 721, 725; Id., 235 U. S. 522, 35 S. Ct. 170, 59 L. Ed. 341; Stafford v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 300 F. 537; Burkhardt v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 13 F.(2d) 841; Goode v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 58 F.(2d) 105; Coates v. United ......
-
Taylor v. Commonwealth
...a reasonable doubt. In the case of Stafford v. United States, decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 300 F. 537, the court passing on the guilt of the plaintiffs in error with reference to transporting intoxicating liquor, conspiracy to transport it, ai......