Barker v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Barker v. United States

6 F.2d 149, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1981

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 1925

DocketNo. 4534

StatusPublished

This text of 6 F.2d 149 (Barker v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. United States, 6 F.2d 149, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1981 (9th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ

of error to review a judgment of conviction under the Harrison Narcotic Act (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q). The indictment contains three counts. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to counts 1 and 2, and guilty as to count 3. The third count charges that on a date named, within the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff in error did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously purchase, sell, dispense, and distribute a certain derivative of opium, to wit, about two grains of morphine, which said morphine was not then and there in, nor from, the original, stamped package. This count is sufficient in law. Stubbs v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 837; Sam Wong v. United States (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 969. And in the absence of a bill of exceptions we cannot review the other errors assigned.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ

of error to review a judgment of conviction under the Harrison Narcotic Act (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q). The indictment contains three counts. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to counts 1 and 2, and guilty as to count 3. The third count charges that on a date named, within the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff in error did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously purchase, sell, dispense, and distribute a certain derivative of opium, to wit, about two grains of morphine, which said morphine was not then and there in, nor from, the original, stamped package. This count is sufficient in law. Stubbs v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 837; Sam Wong v. United States (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 969. And in the absence of a bill of exceptions we cannot review the other errors assigned.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F.2d 149, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-united-states-ca9-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack