United States v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 1858. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
F. D Brennan, of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.
The first count in the indictment in this case charges that the defendant offered and gave to certain persons acting for and in behalf of the United States in an official function, to wit, C. S. Rose and W. E. Spencer, general prohibition agents of the United States, certain sums of money, to wit, $20 with intent to influence said Rose and said Spencer in their decisions and actions in matters and proceedings which might thereafter be brought before them in their official capacity aforesaid, and with intent to influence them, the said Rose and Spencer, to collude in and allow a fraud on the United States, and to induce them, the said Rose and Spencer, to omit to do an act in violation of their lawful duties as such officers aforesaid, to wit, to permit and allow the said defendant, James Patterson, to unlawfully make, possess and dispose of intoxicating liquors. The second count is materially the same, except that the persons to whom the money was offered and given are four instead of two.
The defendant challenges this indictment by a motion to quash on several grounds. The first is that this indictment fails to charge an offense under section 39 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10203). In discussing this ground, the other grounds will be materially covered. The persons to whom the money was offered and given are not described as officers of the government. Therefore, in order to allege a violation of the section, facts must be alleged to bring them within the second class mentioned in the section. The portion of the section having reference to this second class of persons is as follows:
Section 39, Penal Code: 'Whoever shall promise, offer, or give * * * any money * * * to any person acting for or on behalf of the United States in any official function, under or by authority of any department or officer of the Government thereof * * * with intent to influence his decision or action on any question * * * or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity * * * or with intent to influence him to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud * * * or to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty.'
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kemler
...inasmuch as the government can, and may, finally rely upon this fact to support the conviction, under the authority of United States v. Patterson, D.C., 286 F. 760, and United States v. Ingham et al., D.C., 97 F. 935, it is incumbent upon the government to describe the duties or official fu......
-
Schneider v. United States, 12501.
...functions of the person who received the money were not set out. United States v. Kemler, D.C.Mass., 44 F. Supp. 649; United States v. Patterson, D.C. Fla., 286 F. 760; Boykin v. United States, 5 Cir., 11 F.2d The first count of the indictment is set out in the footnote.2 Lieutenant Apperso......
-
United States v. Milburn, 514
...is included in the class, officials, Congress intended to protect from bribery. Bearing on this proposition is the case of U.S. v. James Patterson, 286 F. 760, decided by Judge Call January 31, Order will be entered sustaining the demurrers of the defendants Drawdy, Thompson, Parker, and Ba......