All Nations Trading Company, Inc. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

All Nations Trading Company, Inc. v. United States

338 F.2d 501, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3794

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1964

Docket21164

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 501 (All Nations Trading Company, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

All Nations Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, 338 F.2d 501, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3794 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of a verdict and judgment of guilty on a 10-count indictment, by which it was charged with violation of the automobile information disclosure act, Sections 1231-1233, Title 15 U.S.C.A.

Appellant’s criticism of the trial coui*t’s admission of certain documents in evidence on the ground that they do not wholly satisfy the requirements of the business records statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732(a), overlooks the fact that by testimony, either brought out by appellant in cross examination or testified to without objection, demonstrates that the documents bore the signature of the president of appellant corporation and were in the one instance delivered to the witness producing them by the appellant after receipt of the automobiles, and in the other case were actually prepared by the appellant. Under these circumstances the documents were admissible without proof that they had been made by the business from whose records they wei*e obtained.

If it was error for the trial court to admit opinion testimony to the effect that the automobiles were new rather than used, this would not be prejudicial error because of the much clearer indication of the new status by reason of their being designated as such on the face of documents that bore the signature of the appellant. Moreover,, on cross examination by appellant’s counsel, the customs official was permitted to answer that they were considered! as new for tariff purposes. This fact having been brought out by the appellant, can not now be objected to as being irrelevant to the issue of new versus, used.

In light of the testimony of the' president of appellant, the jury was-permitted to believe that he not only knew of the statutory requirements, if • that be necessary, but that he wilfully violated the statute by his admitted failure to affix the required statement at the-port of entry.

The judgment of the trial court is; affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of a verdict and judgment of guilty on a 10-count indictment, by which it was charged with violation of the automobile information disclosure act, Sections 1231-1233, Title 15 U.S.C.A.

Appellant’s criticism of the trial coui*t’s admission of certain documents in evidence on the ground that they do not wholly satisfy the requirements of the business records statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732(a), overlooks the fact that by testimony, either brought out by appellant in cross examination or testified to without objection, demonstrates that the documents bore the signature of the president of appellant corporation and were in the one instance delivered to the witness producing them by the appellant after receipt of the automobiles, and in the other case were actually prepared by the appellant. Under these circumstances the documents were admissible without proof that they had been made by the business from whose records they wei*e obtained.

If it was error for the trial court to admit opinion testimony to the effect that the automobiles were new rather than used, this would not be prejudicial error because of the much clearer indication of the new status by reason of their being designated as such on the face of documents that bore the signature of the appellant. Moreover,, on cross examination by appellant’s counsel, the customs official was permitted to answer that they were considered! as new for tariff purposes. This fact having been brought out by the appellant, can not now be objected to as being irrelevant to the issue of new versus, used.

In light of the testimony of the' president of appellant, the jury was-permitted to believe that he not only knew of the statutory requirements, if • that be necessary, but that he wilfully violated the statute by his admitted failure to affix the required statement at the-port of entry.

The judgment of the trial court is; affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 501, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/all-nations-trading-company-inc-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack