United States v. Gudger
Decision Date | 14 April 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 408,408 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. GUDGER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United states.
Mr. Joseph S. Graydon, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in error.
Virginia being a state which prohibits the manufacture or sale therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, the defendant in error was indicted for having transported into that state an enumerated quantity of whisky in violation of the provision in section 5 of the Post Office Appropriation Act of March 3, 1917, known as the Reed Amendment. 39 Stat. 1058, 1069, c. 162 (Comp. St. 1918, § 8739a). For the purposes of a motion to quash, the United States attorney furnished a bill of particulars of the evidence which the government intended to offer to sustain the indictment, and the defendant also made admissions which were recited in such bill. The motion to quash, as elucidated by the bill of particulars, was granted on the ground that the statute, when rightly construed, did not embrace the acts charged. The United States prosecutes error.
The case stated by the court below is this:
In addition to these facts we observe that the bill of particulars contained this recital:
'The charge in the indictment that the defendant caused to be transported liquor to Lynchburg, in the state of Virginia, has no other foundation than the fact that he was arrested while the train was stopped at the railroad station at Lynchburg, Va., and while he was en route to Asheville, N. C.'
The bill stated besides, that the accused was traveling on a through ticket from Baltimore to Asheville and return.
Under this state of facts we think the court was clearly right in quashing the indictment, as we are of opinion that there is no ground for holding that the prohibition of the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation
...intoxicants. These laws, the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act, are still in force. 27 U.S.C. §§ 121, 122. In United States v. Gudger, 249 U.S. 373, 39 S.Ct. 323, 63 L.Ed. 653, the Court held that under the Reed amendment of 1917—passed by Congress to strengthen these laws, 39 Stat. 1058, ......
-
Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co.
...to forbid the transportation in interstate commerce of intoxicating liquor through its territorial boundaries. United States v. Gudger, 249 U.S. 373, 39 S.Ct. 323, 63 L.Ed. 653; Williams v. Commonwealth, 169 Va. 857, 192 S.E. 795. And that is true even though the shipment is enroute to a de......
- Commonwealth v. One Dodge Motortruck
-
Commonwealth v. One Dodgemotortruck
...of which prohibit its manufacture, etc., does not prohibit its transportation through such a state to another. United States v. Gudger, 249 U.S. 373, 39 S.Ct. 323, 63 L. Ed. There is nothing in the petition to show that this whisky had come to "rest," as asserted by the commonwealth. Conseq......