Brooks v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Brooks v. United States

76 F.2d 871, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1935

DocketNo. 7655

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 F.2d 871 (Brooks 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

Brooks v. United States, 76 F.2d 871, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712 (5th Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon an indictment which charged him with passing and uttering a number of counterfeit Federal Reserve Bank notes, of the denomination of $100 each, with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 USCA § 265.

It was shown by the evidence without conflict that the notes were counterfeit, and that appellant passed them off on one Jenkins as payment for a quantity of intoxicating liquor which he bought at Savannah from Jenkins. The trial court submitted to the jury the question whether appellant knew the money was counterfeit, but rejected his contention that he could not be convicted because the laws of Georgia recognize no private right of property in intoxicating liquor. Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685; Howell v. Mathieson, 146 Ga. 838, 92 S. E. 520. The manifest object of the statute here involved is to protect against all attempts at fraud upon the genuine monetary obligations or securities of the United States. It does not concern itself with the legality or illegality of the transaction in which money is passed, but is violated by any one who knowingly passes or utters counterfeit money as genuine. And so it is immaterial whether Jenkins had any right of property in the liquor, or could have sued to enforce payment of the purchase price.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon an indictment which charged him with passing and uttering a number of counterfeit Federal Reserve Bank notes, of the denomination of $100 each, with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 USCA § 265.

It was shown by the evidence without conflict that the notes were counterfeit, and that appellant passed them off on one Jenkins as payment for a quantity of intoxicating liquor which he bought at Savannah from Jenkins. The trial court submitted to the jury the question whether appellant knew the money was counterfeit, but rejected his contention that he could not be convicted because the laws of Georgia recognize no private right of property in intoxicating liquor. Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685; Howell v. Mathieson, 146 Ga. 838, 92 S. E. 520. The manifest object of the statute here involved is to protect against all attempts at fraud upon the genuine monetary obligations or securities of the United States. It does not concern itself with the legality or illegality of the transaction in which money is passed, but is violated by any one who knowingly passes or utters counterfeit money as genuine. And so it is immaterial whether Jenkins had any right of property in the liquor, or could have sued to enforce payment of the purchase price.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 F.2d 871, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-united-states-ca5-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack