United States v. Thomas, 7511.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7511.,7511. |
| Citation | 75 F.2d 369 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. THOMAS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John W. Holland, U. S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., and W. Sanders Gramling, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Miami, Fla., for the United States.
Lloyd C. Hooks, of Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging W. G. Thomas entitled to the return of $1,000 which the government contends he paid as a bribe to its customs officers. Thomas alleged in his petition, and the government's answer admits, that in January, 1928, he was arrested while engaged in the act of transporting intoxicating liquor; that he was promptly taken before a United States Commissioner on the charges of violating the National Prohibition Act and attempted bribery; that he waived preliminary hearing and was bound over on both charges; that he pleaded guilty in the District Court to an information charging him with unlawful possession and transportation of liquor; that he was not prosecuted for bribery; that subsequent to his arrest the $1,000 bill was turned over to the Collector of Customs; that in June, 1931, after prosecution for bribery had been barred by the statute of limitations, he made demand upon the collector for the return of the money, but the Collector, without either acceding to or definitely rejecting his demand, in June, 1933, paid the money into the registry of the court; that in November, 1933, on the petition of the District Attorney, the court, without giving Thomas notice or opportunity to be heard, entered an order directing the clerk to cover the money into the Treasury, and vacated that order in this proceeding. Thomas also alleged in his petition that the $1,000 bill was not offered in evidence either at the preliminary hearing or in the District Court; that he is the true and lawful owner of it, and is entitled to its return because of the running of the statute of limitations and the presumption that he is innocent of the charge of bribery. But the government in its answer alleged affirmatively that the $1,000 bill was offered in evidence before the Commissioner at the preliminary hearing, and furthermore that it was paid by Thomas to the customs officers as a bribe, and with the intention on his part that it be accepted as a bribe. Thomas submitted a motion to strike these portions of the answer, and at the same time an additional motion for the entry of a final order on the petition and answer on the ground that the answer did not present a good defense, but admitted the material averments of the petition; and the court, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Farrell, 78-1279
...460 F.2d 404, 406 n. 5 (2d Cir. 1972). 16 Accord: United States v. Iovenelli, 403 F.2d 468, 469 (7th Cir. 1968); United 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 17 Reply Br. 6-7.......
-
Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc.
...Cf. Clark v. United States, 102 U.S. 322, 331-32, 26 L.Ed. 181 (1880) (briber may not recover money paid); United States v. Thomas, 75 F.2d 369, 371 (5th Cir.1935) (same); United States v. Farino, 483 F.Supp. 651, 652 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 633 F.2d 207 (2d Cir.1980) (government, as possessor o......
-
State v. Sherry
...Clark v. United States, 102 U.S. 322, 332, 26 L.Ed. 181, 184 (1880); United States v. Teed, 185 F.2d 561 (9 Cir.1950); United States v. Thomas, 75 F.2d 369 (5 Cir. 1935); United States v. Ortiz, 140 F.Supp. 355 (S.D.N.Y.1956); United States v. Pagan, 140 F.Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y.1955); United S......
-
U.S. v. Beach
...until proven guilty." Appellant's Br. at 10 (emphasis omitted). The former Fifth Circuit rejected a similar claim in United States v. Thomas, 75 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1935), a case in which an alleged bootlegger was charged with violation of the National Prohibition Act and attempted bribery. 4......