United States v. Alsup, 15252.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | HUTCHESON, , BORAH, Circuit , and DAWKINS |
| Citation | 219 F.2d 72 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Scottie Alton ALSUP, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 15252.,15252. |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1955 |
219 F.2d 72 (1955)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Scottie Alton ALSUP, Appellee.
No. 15252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 28, 1955.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 4, 1955.
Leo Meltzer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Warren Olney, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Richard T. Watson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
R. W. Thompson, Jr., Gulfport. Miss., Wm. C. Taylor, Mobile, Ala., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, BORAH, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 4, 1955. See 75 S.Ct. 572.
DAWKINS, District Judge.
Appellee was indicted in four counts for violation of the so-called Kickback
"* * * did then and there knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently, induce and cause Joe Hancock, by means of intimidation of procuring dismissal from employment, to give up a part of the compensation to which said Joe Hancock was entitled as an employee of Ewin Engineering Company, at Kesler Air Force Base, in the Southern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi, said employee Joe Hancock being then and there employed in the construction of public work financed in whole by funds of the United States of America, said Ewin Engineering Company have (sic) agreed previously with defendant that it would employ only members of International Association of Structural, Bridge and Ornamental Iron Workers Union, Local 600, American Federation of Labor, of Mobile, Alabama, and such other employees as the Union or defendant, its representative, might approve, said defendant thereby causing the said Joe Hancock to give up and pay over to defendant the sum of $2.00 per day for a period of approximately forty working days, or more, from his said compensation, in violation of Section 874, Title 18, United States Code, * * *"
Counts two, three and four charged the same offense with respect to three other named employees.
On motion of appellee, the trial court dismissed the indictment on the authority of United States v. Carbone, 327 U.S. 633, 66 S.Ct. 734, 90 L.Ed. 904, saying:
"As disclosed by the decision of that Court the evil intended to be covered and curtailed was the conduct of some of the employers or subemployers in indecently and immorally demanding and receiving part of the wages intended for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. United States, 20727.
...239 F.2d 407, affirming 140 F.Supp. 837. An indictment cannot negative every conceivable possibility. United States v. Alsup, 5 Cir. 1955, 219 F.2d 72, cert. den'd, 348 U.S. 982, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 764; cf. Hagner v. United States, 1932, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861. The ind......
-
Slater v. U.S., 75-1241
...union officials who abuse their economic power by extorting payments from workers may be charged under § 874. United States v. Alsup, 219 F.2d 72 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 982, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 764 Later legislative references to § 874 add weight to our narrow view of that se......
-
United States v. Price, 12426.
...union dues or fees according to union rules, a lawful activity not proscribed by the statute." United States v. Alsup, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 72, In short, the Carbone case seems to stand simply for the proposition that legitimate union activity is not within the purview of the Kickback Act......