Swartz v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3712,3787. |
| Parties | SWARTZ v. UNITED STATES. CHUNG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William K. Jackson and I. A. Zacharias, both of Jacksonville, Fla for plaintiff in error Swartz.
J. N Morris and R. T. Dewell, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff in error Chung.
William M. Gober, U.S. Atty., Maynard Ramsey, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Damon G. Yerkes, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., all of Jacksonville Fla.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
The defendant Swartz was found guilty under two counts of an indictment; the first charging a failure to register and having unlawfully in possession 25 grammes of morphine, and the second a like failure to register and an unlawful possession of a certain amount of cocaine. The defendant Chung was found guilty under an indictment which charged him with not having registered as provided by the Harrison Narcotic Act (Comp. St. Secs. 6287g-6287q), and not being authorized to produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, or give away opium or their salts, and having unlawfully in his possession and under his control 10 grains of opium. Neither indictment charged either defendant with doing or intending to do any of the things specified in the act as requiring a license for their lawful performance.
It is insisted in this court that neither indictment, nor count states an offense against the United States; that the Harrison Narcotic Act is a revenue statute, and the offense consists in the failure of those to register and pay the tax, who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, or give away opium, etc., as specified in the first section of the act (section 6287g); that the offense denounced in the eighth section is the possession by those who are required to register, and not possession generally by all persons; and that an indictment which charges unlawful possession by one not registered, without alleging that he was one of the class required to register, charges no offense against the United States.
We think that the objection is good and that the indictments are fatally defective. The offense is not the possession of the morphine or cocaine, but the possession for some of the purposes for which registration is required, without having registered and paid the tax; and while proof of possession under section 8 of the act (section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Biddle
...400, 402, 36 S. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; United States v. Carney (D. C.) 228 F. 163, 164, 165; Swartz v. United States (C. C. A.) 280 F. 115, 116; Lewis v. United States (C. C. A.) 295 F. 678, 679; Hampton v. Wong Ging (C. C. A.) 299 F. 289, 290. They have also cited U......
-
Smith v. United States
...402, 36 S. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; Franklin v. Biddle, 5 F. (2d) 19, 21, decided by this court; Swartz v. United States, 280 F. 115 (C. C. A. 5). The demurrer to that count should have been The fourth count charges that she was a person required by law to register wit......
-
United States v. Katz
...I think this reasoning is well sustained under the authority of the cases decided under the Harris Anti-Narcotic Act. Swartz v. United States (C. C. A.) 280 F. 115; United States v. Carney (D. C.) 228 F. 163; United States v. Wilson (D. C.) 225 F. 82; United States v. Friedman (D. C.) 224 F......