United States v. Galbreath
| Decision Date | 20 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 2539.,2539. |
| Citation | 8 F.2d 360 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GALBREATH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Clifford A. Russell, of Sacramento, Cal., for petitioner.
George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., and Gerald R. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sacramento, Cal.
The agreed statement in this case shows that the defendant, who was not an officer of the United States, assisted one Ike Caveny, who was a prohibition agent, in the performance of his work. Although prohibition agents are "civil officers of the United States," this did not constitute the defendant such an officer, because the office of assistant to a prohibition agent does not exist. Leonard v. United States (C. C. A. 1) 6 F.(2d) 353, 355.
Such being the case, it appears that, after several purchases of intoxicating liquor had been made by defendant and Caveny from petitioner, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.), defendant asked for and received from petitioner the sum of $300, which was given to and accepted by him as a bribe to prevent petitioner's arrest. The arrest of both men followed, and approximately $250 of the money was taken from defendant's person by Agent Parker, who has retained possession of it up to the present time. Defendant has been convicted of extortion, an offense closely related to that of bribery (9 C. J. 402), and petitioner now seeks the return of said money, claiming that it is legally his property.
The subject to be discussed has received little attention in reported cases. Only a single instance has been found in which even an analogous situation was presented. Clark v. United States, 102 U. S. 322, 331, 332, 26 L. Ed. 181. There it was held that money which had been paid to a public officer, with the corrupt motive and purpose of procuring the official action of another officer, could not be recovered back by its original owners in a suit against the United States. The court said:
It might well be argued that in this case bribery was committed, and that therefore the authority just cited is exactly in point. It was expressly decided, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Farrell, 78-1279
...States v. Thomas, 75 F.2d 369, 371 (5th Cir. 1935); United States v. Connoughton, 39 F.2d 237, 238 (E.D.N.Y.1930); United States v. Galbreath, 8 F.2d 360 (N.D.Cal.1925).17 Reply Br. 6-7.18 Gov't. Br. 20.19 After Northern Securities Co. was held to be an illegal trust, the corporation distri......
-
State v. Sherry
...United States v. Sprinkles, 138 F.Supp. 28 (E.D.Ky.1956); United States v. Connaughton, 39 F.2d 237 (E.D.N.Y.1930); United States v. Galbreath, 8 F.2d 360 (N.D.Calif.1925); Carr v. Hoy, 2 N.Y.2d 185, 158 N.Y.S.2d 572, 139 N.E.2d 531 (Ct.App.1957); Hofferman v. Simmons, 290 N.Y. 449, 49 N.E.......
-
State v. Strickland
...will aid a briber in recovering the money with which he voluntarily parted in furtherance of his unlawful venture. United States v. Galbreath, 8 F.2d 360 (N.D.Cal.1925); See Thorpe v. Carter, supra; Bayne v. Suit, According to 60 A.L.R.2d 1271, Annot. Bribe Recovery by Briber, § 2, "the mod......
-
United States v. Iovenelli
...953, 36 L.Ed. 748; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U.S. 244, 295, 25 S.Ct. 493, 49 L.Ed. 739." See also United States v. Galbreath, 8 F.2d 360 (D.C.N.D.Cal.1925); Arter v. Byington, 44 Ill. 468 (1807); Goodrich v. Tenney, 44 Ill.App. 331 A convicted briber forfeits any right he had......