Terry v. United States
Decision Date | 03 August 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 4433.,4433. |
Citation | 7 F.2d 28 |
Parties | TERRY v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wilford H. Tully, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Sterling Carr, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
On or about June 19, 1922, a number of prohibition agents gained information from some source that a large quantity of inxtoxicating liquors was about to be landed at Allen's Wharf, in Monterey county, and that the liquors so landed would be removed from the wharf by automobiles. The agents concealed themselves in the vicinity of the wharf until the automobiles, to the number of a dozen or 15, appeared upon the scene to remove the liquor, and while the occupants of the automobiles were thus engaged they were apprehended by the agents, and the liquors, together with the automobiles, were seized. Such is the brief story told by the record, yet the indictment covers 38 pages of the printed transcript, and is said to contain upwards of 8,000 words.
The indictment charges that the defendants, to the number of 16, did, at or near Allen's Wharf, in the county of Monterey, on or about the 1st day of November, 1921, the real and exact date being to the grand jurors unknown, conspire and confederate together to commit offenses against the United States in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.), to the number of 10, and sets forth a large number of overt acts to effect the object of the conspiracy. Upon the trial the case was submitted to the jury as to 9 of the defendants, and a verdict of guilty was returned as to 5, and not guilty as to 4. Terry, one of the defendants found guilty, has sued out a writ of error to review the judgment of conviction.
Upon the trial the court admitted testimony, over objection and exception, tending to prove that, about 6 weeks prior to the incident at Allen's Wharf, the plaintiff in error employed one Frohn to transport several barrels of intoxicating liquor from Bodega Bay to a ranch house in the vicinity of Petaluma; that at or about the same time the defendant Zucker rented a barn from one Sousa in that vicinity, and that 9 barrels of intoxicating liquor were stored therein. There was no testimony of any kind, direct or circumstantial, tending to connect any of the other defendants with this prior incident or transaction. Upon the foregoing facts the court charged the jury as follows:
Again:
These instructions were duly excepted to. The plaintiff in error contends that the charge in the indictment is limited to a conspiracy entered into at or near Allen's Wharf, in the county of Monterey, and does not extend to or include the prior incident at Bodega Bay. Ordinarily a charge of conspiracy is not circumscribed or limited by averments as to the time when or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hayes
... ... statutes. The information covers twenty-five printed pages in ... the record, states in great detail the methods alleged to ... have been used by the various defendants in the ... that were so, the defendants could not properly ... [18 A.2d 905] ... be convicted. Terry v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d ... 28; Tinsley v. United States, 8 Cir., 43 F.2d 890 ... In ... ...
-
State v. Erwin
...Campbell v. Newton & Driskill, 1915, 52 Okla. 517, 518, 152 P. 841; People v. MacPhee, 1915, 26 Cal.App. 218, 146 P. 522; Terry v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 28; Witherow v. Mystic Toilers, 42 Utah 130 P. 58; State v. Inlow, 44 Utah 485, 141 P. 530, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 741; Looney v. Bingha......
-
Land v. United States
...We find here no ground justifying a reversal. We discuss briefly the three cases cited by appellant in this connection. In Terry v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 28, the appellant was charged with entering into a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act, 27 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., a......
-
United States v. Beck
...9 Cir., 59 F.2d 173; Crapo v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 996; and Hewitt v. United States, 8 Cir., 110 F.2d 1. 2 Terry v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 28; Wyatt v. United States, 3 Cir., 23 F. 2d 791; Tinsley v. United States, 8 Cir., 43 F.2d 890; Dowdy v. United States, 4 Cir., 46 F......