Benson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Benson v. United States

240 F. 413, 153 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1917

DocketNo. 2630

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 F. 413 (Benson 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

Benson v. United States, 240 F. 413, 153 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385 (5th Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The indictment in this case alleged conduct of the defendant (the plaintiff in error here) containing every ingredient required to constitute an offense denounced by the statute known as the White Slave Act. 36 Stat. 82S. Under the ruling made in the case of Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 Sup. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. - (January 15, 1917), the judgment presented for review is not subject to be reversed on the ground that the indictment failed to charge the commission of a criminal offense.

[1] The objections made on the day the case was called for trial by motions to abate the prosecution and to quash the indictment were subject to be overruled on the ground that they were not made with due promptness after the opportunity was afforded the defendant to make them. Lowdon v. United States, 149 Fed. 673, 79 C. C. A. 361. Assuming that either of those objections would have been sustainable if the,defendant had acted with due promptness in making it, he lost the right to urge it by withholding the making of it until a trial of the charges made was about to be entered upon.

[2] The question of the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support a charge made by the indictment is not presented for review by any exception reserved to a ruling of the court on that subject.

We find no reversible error in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The indictment in this case alleged conduct of the defendant (the plaintiff in error here) containing every ingredient required to constitute an offense denounced by the statute known as the White Slave Act. 36 Stat. 82S. Under the ruling made in the case of Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 Sup. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. - (January 15, 1917), the judgment presented for review is not subject to be reversed on the ground that the indictment failed to charge the commission of a criminal offense.

[1] The objections made on the day the case was called for trial by motions to abate the prosecution and to quash the indictment were subject to be overruled on the ground that they were not made with due promptness after the opportunity was afforded the defendant to make them. Lowdon v. United States, 149 Fed. 673, 79 C. C. A. 361. Assuming that either of those objections would have been sustainable if the,defendant had acted with due promptness in making it, he lost the right to urge it by withholding the making of it until a trial of the charges made was about to be entered upon.

[2] The question of the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support a charge made by the indictment is not presented for review by any exception reserved to a ruling of the court on that subject.

We find no reversible error in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 F. 413, 153 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-united-states-ca5-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack