United States v. Shevlin
| Decision Date | 12 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 655. |
| Citation | 212 F. 343 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHEVLIN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Terrence L. Shevlin and others were indicted for conspiracy. On demurrer to the indictment. Demurrer overruled, and motion to quash denied.
William H. Garland, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass.
John P Feeney, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
Each of the three counts of this indictment charges a conspiracy between the same three defendants. In the first two counts the purpose of the conspiracy is alleged to have been to defraud the United States of customs duties, and in the third, to commit the crime of smuggling foreign merchandise subject to duty into the United States. The overt acts alleged to have been done in furtherance of the conspiracy are the same in each count.
The defendants have demurred to the indictment. The first eight grounds of demurrer present objections to the sufficiency of the indictment of general or minor character and were argued together. Without discussing each separately, I am of the opinion that no one of them is well founded and that the indictment is not uncertain or insufficient on these points.
The ninth, twelfth, and thirteenth grounds of demurrer relate to the overt acts charged to have been done in pursuance of the conspiracy. It is not necessary to allege that such acts were effective, nor ' Bennedict, J U.S. v. Donau, 11 Blatch. 168, Fed. Cas. No. 14,983. By this test the allegations in the indictment are sufficient.
The tenth ground of demurrer questions the sufficiency of the description of the manner or means by which the defendants intended or caused the foreign merchandise to be passed through the United States customs lines; the eleventh, that it does not sufficiently allege any criminal intent on the part of the defendants. The general purpose and scope of the conspiracy are clearly described in the indictment. It is not necessary to allege the exact manner or means by which it was to be carried out. An inspection of the indictment shows that it sufficiently alleges criminal knowledge and intent by the defendants.
The fourteenth ground of demurrer is that the indictment does not allege that the defendants intended that the foreign merchandise should not be invoiced. Such an allegation is, in my opinion, unnecessary for the reasons stated in my memorandum in case 656 against these defendants.
The fifteenth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anthony
...Tr. R. Co., D.C. 1915, 225 F. 283, 285, 286; Lisansky v. United States, supra, 31 F.2d at page 848; *United States v. Shevlin, D. C.Mass.1913, 212 F. 343, at pages 344, 345; United States v. Burke, supra, 221 F. at pages 1014, 1015; May v. United States, supra, 175 F.2d at page 1003; Freema......
-
State v. Mclaughlin
...telephone apparatus for the purpose stated, the offense might be complete even though no one received the information, United States v. Shevlin, D.C., 212 F. 343, 344; United States v. Burke, D.C., 221 F. 1014, 1015; State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 243, 85 N.W. 1046, 62 L.R.A.......
-
Houston v. United States
...11 Blatchf. 168, Fed. Cas. No. 14,983, and the same has been held in Gantt v. United States, 108 F. 61, 47 C.C.A. 210, and United States v. Shevlin (D.C.) 212 F. 343, we find no decision to the contrary. But it is said that by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyde v. United States, 225 ......
-
Heskett v. United States
...of the conspiracy. Houston v. United States, 217 F. 853, 133 C. C. A. 562; United States v. Wupperman (D. C.) 215 F. 135; United States v. Shevlin (D. C.) 212 F. 343." See, also, Rumely et al. v. United States (C. C. A. 2) 293 F. 532, 550, certiorari denied 263 U. S. 713, 44 S. Ct. 38, 68 L......