Woods v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3991. |
| Citation | 290 F. 957 |
| Parties | WOODS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied August 6, 1923.
On Petition for Rehearing.
John F Dore, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
Thos P. Revelle, U.S. Atty., and De Wolfe Emory, Sp. Asst. U.S Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Under an information containing four counts, Woods, plaintiff in error, was convicted under count 3. Count 1 charged unlawful possession of certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, 24 ounces called distilled spirits, and one quart of whisky intended for use in violating the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat 305); count 2 charged that, upon the same day named in count 1, Woods unlawfully sold 8 ounces of distilled spirits; count 3 charged that upon the same day Woods unlawfully sold 16 ounces of liquor called distilled spirits; and count 4 charged Woods with conducting and maintaining a common nuisance, a drug store where intoxicating liquor was kept in violation of the National Prohibition Act. There was acquittal under counts 1, 2, and 4, and conviction under count 3.
The main point urged is that one cannot be guilty of selling liquor and be innocent of possessing the identical liquor with the intention of selling the same. That depends upon the facts. Defendant is a druggist, and admitted having the alcohol in his possession, but contended that the sale was lawful. Of course, as a druggist defendant might lawfully have possession of the quantity of alcohol described in count 1, and might lawfully have sold alcohol in his possession. The court recognized this, and charged the jury that defendant as a dealer had a right to sell medicated alcohol in accordance with formulas listed in the rules and regulations of the United States authorities, and further called the attention of the jury to the testimony of the defendant that he had sold under formula No. 1, which includes bichloride of mercury 1 part, and alcohol 2,000 parts. A druggist may obtain a permit to possess and use alcohol and sell the same in medicated forms in limited quantities, and yet may violate the law in selling what lawfully came into his possession. There is, therefore, no necessary inconsistency in the verdict.
The verdict is supported by testimony to the effect that the man to whom the sale was made had no bottles or liquor upon his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gozner v. United States
...287 F. 125 C. C. A. 9; Bullock v. United States, 289 F. 29 C. C. A. 6; Carrignan v. United States, 290 F. 189 C. C. A. 7; Woods v. United States, 290 F. 957 C. C. A. 9; Lee Choy v. United States, 293 F. 582 C. C. A. 9; Milner v. United States, 293 F. 590 C. C. A. 5) which appear to tacitly ......
-
Keen v. United States
...if recourse may thus be had, the direct evidence, when assisted, as here, by the circumstances, shows a sale for cash. Woods v. United States (C. C. A.) 290 F. 957. The facts, as disclosed by Stark, even absent some of the circumstances, indicate, at least, a sale on credit. Sales of liquor......
-
Steckler v. United States, 310.
...The same was true of Carrignan v. United States, 290 F. 189 (C. C. A. 7), though the court took a broader ground. In Woods v. United States, 290 F. 957 (C. C. A. 9), the acquittal on the possession count could be reconciled with a conviction for selling because a single sale might not color......
-
State v. Hirtle
...The action of the respondent in not taking payment when tendered does not change the character of the transaction. "Woods v. U. S. (D. C.) 290 F. 957. The respondent has urged before us his exception to the action of the justice and the comment of the justice in interrupting the argument of......