Wayne v. United States, 12495.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 12495.,12495. |
| Citation | 138 F.2d 1 |
| Parties | WAYNE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Philip R. Bangs, of Grand Forks, N. D., for appellant.
Harry Lashkowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Fargo, N. D. (P. W. Lanier, U. S. Atty., of Fargo, N. D., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges, and DELEHANT, District Judge.
Writ of Certiorari Denied January 3, 1944. See 64 S.Ct. 429.
By an indictment in three counts the appellant was charged with having made three separate sales of beer to an Indian ward of the United States on July 19, 1941, at Rolla, North Dakota, in violation of § 2139 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as amended, § 241, Title 25, U.S.C.A. This statute, so far as pertinent, provides that: "Any person who shall sell * * any malt, spirituous, or vinous liqour, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or other intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever * * * to any Indian who is a ward of the Government under charge of any Indian superintendent or agent, or to any Indian, including mixed bloods, over whom the Government, through its departments, exercises guardianship, * * * shall be punished * * *." The appellant entered a plea of not guilty and was tried. The jury found him guilty upon each count, and he has appealed from the judgment and sentences entered upon the verdict.
The appellant's first contention is that the court erred in denying his request, made at the opening of the trial, that the Government be compelled to disclose the names of its witnesses, so that the prospective jurors might be asked by the court whether any of them knew any of the Government's witnesses. In denying the request, the court stated that it would inquire whether any of the jurors knew any of the Government's witnesses that the appellant might name. The appellant named three prospective Government witnesses, and the court made the requested inquiry. It later developed that there was another witness whose name the appellant did not have, and no inquiry was made of the jurors with respect to him. There is no contention that any of the jurors were related to or acquainted with any of the Government's witnesses. The appellant concedes that he has found no authority to support his argument that the court was required to furnish him with a list of the Government's witnesses. We think that there was no error or prejudice involved in the denial of the appellant's request.
The evidence of the Government demonstrated that the appellant had done exactly what the indictment charged him with doing, namely, making three separate sales of beer to an Indian ward of the Government at the time and place specified in the indictment. On each occasion the Indian purchased bottled as well as draft beer and delivered the bottles of beer to the Government officers who had brought him to the appellant's place of business and furnished him the money to make the purchases. These bottles, which bore the labels of well-known brands of beer, were introduced in evidence, and it was stipulated that they contained beer. The appellant contends that it was incumbent upon the Government to prove, not only that the appellant sold beer, but that the beer was intoxicating. Apparently no such question was raised upon the trial, since there was no motion for a directed verdict, no request...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schneiderman
...of trial" with names of "the witnesses to be produced on the trial for proving the indictment". 18 U.S.C. § 3432; Wayne v. United States, 8 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 1, certiorari denied, 1944, 320 U.S. 800, 64 S.Ct. 429, 88 L.Ed. 483; Jones v. United States, 9 Cir., 1908, 162 F. 417, 420, certi......
-
Cox v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n
...article had become effective. Ex parte Smith, 24 Okl.Cr. 415, 218 P. 708; Antonelli v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 580, 107 P. 951; Wayne v. United States, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 1; Davis v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 82, 108 P.2d 200. laws sleep but never die. This is a voice crying in the wilderness to sustain a C......
-
Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n
...containing 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight will produce intoxication when consumed in sufficient quantities. 9 See Wayne v. United States, 138 F.2d 1, 2 (8th Cir.1943) ("[t]hat beer is a malt liquor and is intoxicating is a matter of common knowledge and ... requires no proof"), cert. deni......
-
Grant v. United States, 17240.
...been raised below, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Cellino v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 941; Wayne v. United States, 8 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800, 64 S.Ct. 429, 88 L. Ed. 483; Silva v. United States, 9 Cir., 1929, 35 F.2d 598, rehearing......