Blackwell v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Blackwell v. United States

236 F. 912, 150 C.C.A. 174, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1916

DocketNo. 4376

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 F. 912 (Blackwell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackwell v. United States, 236 F. 912, 150 C.C.A. 174, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2361 (8th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Blackwell was convicted of introducing intoxicating liquor from outside the state of Oklahoma into that part of the state which was formerly Indian Territory. Act March 1, 1895, c. 145, 28 Stat. 693. B-ut two grounds are urged for a reversal of the sentence:

[1-3] First. That the court erred in allowing Welch, a witness for the government, to answer a question as to what defendant’s business was about the time of his arrest. He answered that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky. But the question was proper. Moreover, the objection was merely that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Finally, on cross-examination the witness testified that all he meant was that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky the day he was caught, and that was true, as defendant admitted.

[4] Second. It is contended that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. We think there was substantial evidence that defendant got the whisky described, 192 quarts and a five-gallon cask, at Coffeyville, Kan., instead of at South Coffeyville, Old., and that therefore there was an introduction from outside the state, instead of a mere hauling within its borders. The jury were warranted in believing this from the facts and circumstances developed in the testimony of the government’s witnesses, as against the claim of the defendant that he got the whisky at the hamlet of South Coffeyville.

The sentence is affirmed.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Blackwell was convicted of introducing intoxicating liquor from outside the state of Oklahoma into that part of the state which was formerly Indian Territory. Act March 1, 1895, c. 145, 28 Stat. 693. B-ut two grounds are urged for a reversal of the sentence:

[1-3] First. That the court erred in allowing Welch, a witness for the government, to answer a question as to what defendant’s business was about the time of his arrest. He answered that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky. But the question was proper. Moreover, the objection was merely that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Finally, on cross-examination the witness testified that all he meant was that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky the day he was caught, and that was true, as defendant admitted.

[4] Second. It is contended that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. We think there was substantial evidence that defendant got the whisky described, 192 quarts and a five-gallon cask, at Coffeyville, Kan., instead of at South Coffeyville, Old., and that therefore there was an introduction from outside the state, instead of a mere hauling within its borders. The jury were warranted in believing this from the facts and circumstances developed in the testimony of the government’s witnesses, as against the claim of the defendant that he got the whisky at the hamlet of South Coffeyville.

The sentence is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. 912, 150 C.C.A. 174, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-united-states-ca8-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack