United States v. Bennett
Decision Date | 15 November 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 82.,82. |
Citation | 152 F.2d 342 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. BENNETT et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry K. Chapman, of New York City, for appellant.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (David Hartfield, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was tried in the District Court for the Southern District of New York on an indictment charging that she and one George Wesley Bennett conspired together and with others unlawfully to acquire, possess and transfer gasoline ration coupons in violation of the provisions 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 633 and of the rules, regulations and orders duly adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto by the Office of Price Administration. It was alleged to be a part of the conspiracy that the appellant would steal gasoline ration coupons from the First National Bank of Poughkeepsie, New York; transfer them to Bennett; and share with Bennett the money obtained from the sale of them. After a trial by jury both the appellant and Bennett were found guilty and she has appealed from the judgment and sentence imposed upon her.
She relies wholly upon claimed error in the charge as ground for reversal and to understand the significance of that it will be helpful now to refer to what is called in the record on appeal the "Stipulation of Agreed Facts" which follows:
"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the appellant and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York that the following constitutes a narrative statement of facts in the case of United States v. Verna Mae Bihn and George Wesley Bennett. The parties to this stipulation agree that the facts mentioned hereafter are accurate, but neither party is precluded from referring to additional facts in the record on the argument of the appeal.
Statement of Facts
While the introductory paragraph of this stipulation refers to what follows as "a narrative statement of facts" and it is stated that the "parties to this stipulation agree that the facts mentioned are accurate" they also reserved the right to refer "to additional facts in the record on the argument for appeal." It is fairly evident from this reservation that the appellant did not concede that the actual facts were as stated but that there was evidence which, if believed, would have supported findings by the jury that the facts were as stated in the stipulation. That is enough to show that there was evidence on which to submit the case against the appellant to the jury and no argument to the contrary has been made. To be sure the appellant's own testimony and other evidence she introduced, some of which tended to show that some of the government's witnesses were biased and prejudiced against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ross
...Lekacos, 151 F.2d 170, revd. 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557; United States v. Rubenstein, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 915; United States v. Bennett, 152 F.2d 342, revd. sub. nom., Bihn v. United States, 328 U.S. 633, 66 S.Ct. 1172, 90 L.Ed. 1485; United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 2......
-
Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Sylvania Indust. Corp.
...more in a supplemental memorandum. This is an afterthought not presented below and should not be considered now, United States v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 342, 349, and cases cited, particularly as the allegations are not at all adequate under cases such as Lances v. Letz, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d......
-
United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co.
...would not have made it abundantly plain at once that his language should not have been so construed or misconstrued." United States v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 342, 346, now before the Supreme Defendants' final contention is that of repugnancy in the verdict. In view of the charges in each......
-
United States v. Walker
...137 F.2d 995, 1001; U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 1006, 1011-1012; U. S. v. Rubenstein, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 915, 919; U. S. v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 342, 346, reversed sub nom. U. S. v. Bihn, 328 U.S. 633, 66 S.Ct. 1172, 90 L.Ed. 1485; U. S. v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 2 Cir., 155 F.......