Young v. United States, No. 5959.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit
Citation48 F.2d 26
Decision Date10 April 1931
Docket NumberNo. 5959.
PartiesYOUNG et al. v. UNITED STATES.

48 F.2d 26 (1931)

YOUNG et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 5959.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 10, 1931.


John B. McNamara, of Waco, Tex., Edwin H. Grace, of New Orleans, La., Allan D. Sanford, of Galveston, Tex., and A. L. Curtis, of Belton, Tex. (Lovett & Lovett, of Corsicana, Tex., on the brief), for appellants.

John D. Hartman, U. S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex.

Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

The indictment in this case charges a conspiracy to sell, and possess for sale, utensils and substances, including corn chops, sugar, fruit jars, and charred barrels, designed and intended for use in the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; and to manufacture, possess, sell, and transport intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The appellants, McDaniel, Young, Coates, Lee, Franklin, and Campbell, were convicted as charged. Evidence for the government tended to show that McDaniel, manager of a wholesale business at Corsicana, Tex., sold large quantities of the above articles described in the indictment to Young and Coates, and made deliveries at the village or town of Young, where Young and Coates had adjoining retail stores, with a connecting door, in the same building.

Young and Coates sold the articles purchased from McDaniel at retail. Lee, Franklin, and Campbell were among their customers, and each of them made individual purchases, but there was no proof that they were acting in concert. It was not directly shown that any of the articles thus sold were used in connection with the manufacture of liquor, although there were many illicit distilleries in the neighborhood. The most that can be claimed by the government is that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that McDaniel, Young, and Coates knew that the articles in question were being bought from Young and Coates by persons who intended to use them in connection with the unlawful manufacture of liquor.

We are of opinion that this evidence was insufficient to prove the conspiracy alleged. McDaniel, the seller, could not have been a coconspirator with Young and Coates, the purchasers, upon proof simply that he made sales to them; and in turn Young and Coates, whether acting individually or as partners, could not upon similar proof have

48 F.2d 27
been coconspirators with those who purchased from them at retail. There must have been a conspiracy to do something unlawful after the sales were made in order to sustain the indictment. United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 46 S. Ct. 513, 70 L. Ed. 986. In Edenfield v. United States (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 614, there were three indictments, each containing two counts; the first count charging a conspiracy to manufacture liquor, and the second to manufacture liquor without making a permanent record. Edenfield was convicted and sentenced on both counts of each indictment. The judgment was affirmed in toto by this court in a memorandum opinion, which, while recognizing the principle of law that there must be evidence beyond proof of sale, stated that "the evidence for the government tended to show that plaintiff in error furnished to his codefendants copper and other materials to be used in making a still, as well as sugar and meal to be used in the manufacture of liquor." The case was reversed by the Supreme Court because of the conviction on the second set of counts which charged conspiracy to manufacture...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • United States v. Harrison, No. 7498.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 24, 1941
    ...Di Bonaventura v. United States, 4 Cir., 15 F.2d 494; United States v. Russell, D.C., 41 F.2d 852; Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 26; United States v. Peoni, 2 Cir., 100 F.2d 401, noted in Application of Conspiracy Statute to Prosecution For Sale of Counterfeit Money, 48 Yale Law J......
  • Lott v. United States, No. 15033.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 20, 1955
    ...in that court, or that court may dismiss the appeal upon motion and notice by the appellant." 2 Citing Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 26; United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354, 46 S.Ct. 513, 70 L.Ed. 986; See also Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 960, and Judge Hutcheson's ......
  • Davis v. State, No. 56140
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 12, 1986
    ...in it as something that he wished to bring about, or sought by his action to make it succeed. Young v. United States (5th. Cir.1931) 48 F.2d 26, United States v. Peoni, (2nd. Cir.1938) 100 F.2d 401, Looking to the facts singly or in combination with others, it appears that Banks' involvemen......
  • U.S. v. Klein, Nos. 75-2023
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 14, 1977
    ...a co-conspirator it is necessary to prove that he actively participated in the conspiracy charged. Young v. United States, 5 Cir. 1931, 48 F.2d 26. Mere association with conspirators is not enough to establish participation in the conspiracy. Roberts v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • United States v. Harrison, No. 7498.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 24, 1941
    ...Di Bonaventura v. United States, 4 Cir., 15 F.2d 494; United States v. Russell, D.C., 41 F.2d 852; Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 26; United States v. Peoni, 2 Cir., 100 F.2d 401, noted in Application of Conspiracy Statute to Prosecution For Sale of Counterfeit Money, 48 Yale Law J......
  • Lott v. United States, No. 15033.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 20, 1955
    ...in that court, or that court may dismiss the appeal upon motion and notice by the appellant." 2 Citing Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 26; United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354, 46 S.Ct. 513, 70 L.Ed. 986; See also Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 960, and Judge Hutcheson's ......
  • Davis v. State, No. 56140
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 12, 1986
    ...in it as something that he wished to bring about, or sought by his action to make it succeed. Young v. United States (5th. Cir.1931) 48 F.2d 26, United States v. Peoni, (2nd. Cir.1938) 100 F.2d 401, Looking to the facts singly or in combination with others, it appears that Banks' involvemen......
  • U.S. v. Klein, Nos. 75-2023
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 14, 1977
    ...a co-conspirator it is necessary to prove that he actively participated in the conspiracy charged. Young v. United States, 5 Cir. 1931, 48 F.2d 26. Mere association with conspirators is not enough to establish participation in the conspiracy. Roberts v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT