Barrow v. United States

District of Columbia

Barrow v. United States

295 F. 949, 54 App. D.C. 128, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3259

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1924

DocketNo. 3996

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 295 F. 949 (Barrow v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrow v. United States, 295 F. 949, 54 App. D.C. 128, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3259 (D.D.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of forging the indorsements upon and uttering two checks drawn on the treasury of the United States to the order of one G. H. Stovall. '

The case is here on numerous assignments of error, none of which, or all combined, call for reversal of the judgment. The questions presented are too elementary to justify the incumbrance of the reports with a formal opinion. A discussion of the matters embraced in the bill of exceptions would serve no good purpose, either by way of enlightenment or entertainment of the bar.

A suggestion by the district attorney discloses that sections 148 and 151 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. §§ 10318, 10321), under which defendant was convicted, provide punishments consisting of both fine and imprisonment, while defendant was sentenced only to a term of imprisonment. The judgment in this particular should be corrected. This oversight on the part of the trial judge, however, is not such as to require a new trial. Egan v. United States, 52 App. D. C. 384, 397, 287 Fed. 958; Harman v. United States (C. C.) 50 Fed. 922; Woodruff v. United States (C. C.) 58 Fed. 766, 768; In re Christian (C. C.) 82 Fed. 199.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction to the trial court to set aside the judgment and resentence the defendant as required by law.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of forging the indorsements upon and uttering two checks drawn on the treasury of the United States to the order of one G. H. Stovall. '

The case is here on numerous assignments of error, none of which, or all combined, call for reversal of the judgment. The questions presented are too elementary to justify the incumbrance of the reports with a formal opinion. A discussion of the matters embraced in the bill of exceptions would serve no good purpose, either by way of enlightenment or entertainment of the bar.

A suggestion by the district attorney discloses that sections 148 and 151 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. §§ 10318, 10321), under which defendant was convicted, provide punishments consisting of both fine and imprisonment, while defendant was sentenced only to a term of imprisonment. The judgment in this particular should be corrected. This oversight on the part of the trial judge, however, is not such as to require a new trial. Egan v. United States, 52 App. D. C. 384, 397, 287 Fed. 958; Harman v. United States (C. C.) 50 Fed. 922; Woodruff v. United States (C. C.) 58 Fed. 766, 768; In re Christian (C. C.) 82 Fed. 199.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction to the trial court to set aside the judgment and resentence the defendant as required by law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 F. 949, 54 App. D.C. 128, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-united-states-dcd-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack