Byron v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Byron v. United States

43 F.2d 360, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3894

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 16, 1930·No. No. 2965·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the transaction involved in this ease amounted to a transportation of intoxicating liquor within the meaning and intent of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). Hill v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 165, 256 S. W. 921; Warren v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 250 S. W. 429; Locke v. City of Ft. Smith, 155 Ark. 158, 244 S. W. 11; 33 C. J. 582; Thorpe on Prohibition ■218.' There was error, therefore, in the charge of the learned trial judge, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the transaction involved in this ease amounted to a transportation of intoxicating liquor within the meaning and intent of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). Hill v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 165, 256 S. W. 921; Warren v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 250 S. W. 429; Locke v. City of Ft. Smith, 155 Ark. 158, 244 S. W. 11; 33 C. J. 582; Thorpe on Prohibition ■218.' There was error, therefore, in the charge of the learned trial judge, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Reversed.

Byron v. United States, 43 F.2d 360, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3894 (4th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

43 F.2d 360 (Byron v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related