Welsh v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 215. |
| Citation | 267 F. 819 |
| Parties | WELSH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Martin Conboy, of New York City (Edwin N. Moore, of New York City of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Francis G. Caffey, U.S. Atty., of New York City (James W. Osborne Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the United States.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
The defendant Welsh was convicted of violating section 3, subd (c), of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 3115 1/2b(c)). The indictment contained two counts, the first charging him with willfully attempting to bring into the United States from a foreign country, to wit, England, a certain tangible form of communication, to wit, a certain letter, and the second count charging him with willfully bringing in the same letter. April 5, 1918, the case was tried and the defendant convicted upon both counts and sentenced to imprisonment for a year and a day in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga.
December 31, 1919, long after the term and all extensions of it had expired, and some 20 months after the cause had been removed by writ of error to this court, the trial judge signed the bill of exceptions. He was without any jurisdiction to do so under these circumstances, and we can consider no exception taken at the trial. Jennings v. Railway Co., 218 U.S. 255, 31 Sup.Ct. 1, 54 L.Ed. 1031.
But the writ of error does permit us to consider any errors appearing on the face of the record, because no exception is necessary to save them. Moline Plow Co. v. Webb, 141 U.S. 616 623, 12 Sup.Ct. 100, 35 L.Ed. 879; Nalle v. Oyster, 230 U.S. 165, 33 Sup.Ct. 1043, 57 L.Ed. 1439; Denver v. Home Saving Bank, 236 U.S. 101, 35 Sup.Ct. 265, 59 L.Ed. 485.
Section 3, subd. (c), reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. United States
...Cir., 131 F.2d 261; United States v. Poller, 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 911, 74 A.L.R. 1382; United States v. Welsh, D.C., 247 F. 239; Welsh v. United States, 2 Cir., 267 F. 819; Colyer v. Skeffington, D.C., 265 F. 17; United States v. Murphy, D.C., 264 F. 842; Flagg v. United States, 2 Cir., 233 F. 4......
-
Anderson v. United States
... ... violating any rights of the defendants. There is proof that ... would sustain such a conclusion, and authority in support ... Wheeler v. U.S., 226 U.S. 478, 490, 33 Sup.Ct. 158, ... 57 L.Ed. 309; Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47, 49, 39 ... Sup.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470; Welsh v. U.S. (C.C.A.) ... 267 F. 819; Haywood v. U.S., supra ... We have ... given this consideration to the merits of the questions ... raised by the motion and demurrer notwithstanding it is the ... general rule that the action of the trial court in overruling ... them is not ... ...
-
Estate of Tischler
...with an enemy alien. (United States v. Krepper (1946) 159 F.2d 958, cert. den., 330 U.S. 824, 67 S.Ct. 865, 91 L.Ed. 1275; Welsh v. United States (1920) 267 F. 819, mand. den. 254 U.S. 607--608, 41 S.Ct. 6, 65 L.Ed. 435; cf. Farmers & Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Superior Court (1945) 25 Cal.2d ......
-
Peru v. United States
...the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the prosecution." Green et al. v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 236; Welsh v. United States (C. C. A.) 267 F. 819; Donegan v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 641; Elrod v. Moss et al. (C. C. A.) 278 F. 123; United States v. Borkowski et al......