United States v. Arnulfo Chavez
Citation | 33 S.Ct. 595,57 L.Ed. 950,228 U.S. 525 |
Decision Date | 05 May 1913 |
Docket Number | No. 863,863 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. ARNULFO CHAVEZ, alias Arnuto Chavez |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 525-527 intentionally omitted] No appearance for defendant in error.
By virtue of the act of March 2, 1907 [34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564] this direct writ of error is prosecuted for the purpose of reversing the judgment below because of an alleged erroneous construction given by the court to the joint resolution of March 14, 1912 (37 Stat. at L. 630), in consequence of which the indictment in this case was quashed because stating no defense against the provisions of the joint resolution.
The charging part of the indictment is as follows:
'That heretofore, to wit: on the 3d day of May, A. D. 1912, in the city and county of El Paso, in the state of Texas, in the western district of Texas, and within the jurisdiction of this court, one Arnulfo Chavez, alias Arnuto Chavez, late of said district, did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and with intent to export the munitions of war hereinafter described from the said city of El Paso to Ciudad Juarez in Mexico, make a certain shipment of munitions of war, to wit: two thousand (2,000) Winchester cartridges of the caliber 30-30, that is to say, did make a shipment of said munitions of war from said city of El Paso and with said Ciudad Juarez in Mexico as the destination of said shipment, by transporting the same on his person from a point the exact location of which is to your grand jury unknown and hence not here given, near the intersection of North El Paso and San Francisco streets in said city of El Paso to a point, the exact location of which is to your grand jury unknown, and hence not here given, but which is near the intersection of South Stanton and Fifth streets in the said city of El Paso.'
The joint resolution is as follows:
The proclamation of the President applying without exception or limitation the provisions of the resolution to Mexico was issued April 12, 1912. Proclamations 1912, p. 57.
Considering it to be indisputable that two act are essential to constitute export in the legal sense, a shipment from this country to a foreign country, and the landing of the goods in such foreign country, the court below held that no transgression of the prohibition of the 1st section, making it unlawful to export, could arise from the facts charged, because they alleged—giving them the most favorable view to the government—but a shipment from this country to Mexico, unconsummated by delivery in the foreign country. Coming to consider the 2d section, it was held that the act punished by that section was the exportation prohibited by the 1st section, and hence the charge of shipment without an averment of landing in the foreign country stated no offense punishable by the 2d section. The court said:
In common speech the shipment of goods from this to a foreign country without regard to their landing in such country is often spoken of as an export. It is true...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co.
...v. Simpson, 252 U.S. 465, 64 L. Ed. 665; United States v. Slater, 123 Fed. 115; United States v. Burch, 226 Fed. 974; United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 57 L. Ed. 950; United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U.S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 1459; United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co., 149 Fed. 486.......
-
Hamarstrom v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
... ... 832; New York Central R. Co. v ... Winfield, 244 U.S. 147; United States v ... Simpson, 252 U.S. 465, 64 L.Ed. 665; United States ... 115; United States v. Burch, ... 226 F. 974; United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, ... 57 L.Ed. 950; United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Huynh, 00-30151
...in original). 10. See id. (citing, inter alia, Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 145 (1903), United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 530 (1913), and United States v. Hill, 34 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 11. At the time, 18 U.S.C. 2314 provided: "'Whosoever transports in interstate ......
-
U.S. v Huynh
...(alterations in original). 10 See id. (citing, inter alia, Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 145 (1903), United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 530 (1913), and United States v. Hill, 34 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 11 At the time, 18 U.S.C. § 2314 provided: "'Whosoever transports i......