Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3983. |
| Citation | 294 F. 682 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A. S Baskett, of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
Henry Zweifel, U.S. Atty., of Dallas, Tex. (H. L. Arterberry and F M. Parrish, both of Fort Worth, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of violating section 2 of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Law (38 Stat. 785 (Comp. St. Sec. 6287h)), by selling to a named person 'one-sixteenth (1/16th) of an ounce of morphine, the same being a compound of opium, not in the regular course' of his professional practice as a physician, and not for the treatment of any disease, but for the purpose of satisfying the craving of one addicted to the use of morphine.
The trial court admitted evidence of other sales and of administering morphine by the plaintiff in error to the same person on many other occasions shortly prior to the time of the sale in question. It was shown by the testimony of chemists that the drug described in the indictment was morphine sulphate, but that it was commonly known as morphine. The court denied a motion based upon the ground that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof. The foregoing rulings are assigned as error.
It was proper to allow proof that the plaintiff in error had either sold or administered morphine on previous occasions, as bearing upon his intent. A practicing physician does not violate the act in question if he merely dispenses morphine 'in the course of his professional practice only; ' but it is a violation of the law for a physician to dispense morphine for the purpose of gratifying the appetites of those addicted to the use of it. The evidence of other sales was therefore properly admitted to show knowledge and an unlawful intent. Dysart v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 270 F. 77; 16 C.J 589. A dealer, as distinguished from a physician, is authorized to sell opium or its derivatives only upon a written order, and if he has not such order his intent is immaterial, and it was so held in Guilbeau v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 288 F. 731.
A variance did not arise by reason of the fact that the drug described in the indictment as morphine was technically designated by the chemists as morphine sulphate. It was unobjectionable for the indictment to describe the derivative of opium sold as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Alston
...indictment. See Morris v. United States, 5 Cir.1941, 123 F.2d 957; Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir.1939, 101 F.2d 960; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir.1923, 294 F. 682. However, it is also settled law that prior or subsequent incidents may be introduced to establish that the defendant poss......
-
United States v. Schrenzel
...Judge for the District of Nebraska sitting by designation. 1 It is interesting to note that the same court, in Williams v. United States, 294 F. 682 (5 Cir., 1923), upheld the variance between an indictment which charged the sale of morphine and proof which showed the drug to be a morphine ......
-
United States v. Pisano, 10388.
...knowledge, of the settled, undisputed, things of life, need not always be laid aside on entering a courtroom." See also Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 294 F. 682, 683; Chadwick v. United States, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 902, 903; Hughes v. United States, 8 Cir., 253 F. 543, 545; James v. United......
-
Padilla v. United States
...violation of Section 174, Title 21, U.S.Code.)" 3 Hughes v. United States, 8 Cir., 253 F. 543, 545. To the same effect, Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 294 F. 682, 683; Chadwick v. United States, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 902, 903; James v. United States, 5 Cir., 279 F. 111, 112; Greenberg v. Uni......