Chodkowski v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Chodkowski v. United States

194 F. 858, 114 C.C.A. 624, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 2, 1912

DocketNo. 1,762

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F. 858 (Chodkowski v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chodkowski v. United States, 194 F. 858, 114 C.C.A. 624, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1231 (7th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Clauses R 3, and 4 of the instructions tendered by the defendant below, as numbered by us in the statement of facts herein, deal only with the questions of reasonable doubt and burden of proof. They state the law correctly, and the jury should have been so instructed. The burden of proof was on the government to establish the guilt of plaintiff in error beyond a reasonable doubt. These propositions are too well settled to require citation of authorities.

[2] Plaintiff in en;or was entitled to have the jury instructed that, if they found from the evidence that Chodkowski and wife conveyed to Wojnowski the lots in question by warranty deed, .then the law presumes that in so doing appellant acted legally and in good faith, and required that the jury should give him the benefit of that presumption. American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Hall, 208 Ill. 601, 70 N. E. 581; Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403, 11 N. E. 70. The refusal of the court to so instruct the jury constitute^ reversible error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the District Court to grant a new trial.

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

KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Clauses R 3, and 4 of the instructions tendered by the defendant below, as numbered by us in the statement of facts herein, deal only with the questions of reasonable doubt and burden of proof. They state the law correctly, and the jury should have been so instructed. The burden of proof was on the government to establish the guilt of plaintiff in error beyond a reasonable doubt. These propositions are too well settled to require citation of authorities.

[2] Plaintiff in en;or was entitled to have the jury instructed that, if they found from the evidence that Chodkowski and wife conveyed to Wojnowski the lots in question by warranty deed, .then the law presumes that in so doing appellant acted legally and in good faith, and required that the jury should give him the benefit of that presumption. American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Hall, 208 Ill. 601, 70 N. E. 581; Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403, 11 N. E. 70. The refusal of the court to so instruct the jury constitute^ reversible error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the District Court to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F. 858, 114 C.C.A. 624, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chodkowski-v-united-states-ca7-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack