Edenfield v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Edenfield v. United States

8 F.2d 614, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3332

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 1925

DocketNo. 4580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 F.2d 614 (Edenfield 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

Edenfield v. United States, 8 F.2d 614, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3332 (5th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The indictments in these cases charge conspiracies to manufacture intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Aet (Comp. Sti. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.). The evidence for the government tended to show that plaintiff in error furnished to 'his eodefendamts copper and other materials to be used in making a still, as well as sugar and meal to be used in the manufacture of liquor.

One of the charges of the court was to the effect that this evidence, if believed, was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer a conspiracy between plaintiff in error and his codefendants to commit the offenses alleged. The assignments of error are based solely on this charge, to which it is-sought to give the construction that the mere sale of the , described materials to others, who had conspired to violate the law, was sufficient to make the seller a co-eonspirator. Clearly the charge will not hear thdt interpretation, and was proper, because it merely authorized the jury to infer an agreement to do what was actually done.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The indictments in these cases charge conspiracies to manufacture intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Aet (Comp. Sti. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.). The evidence for the government tended to show that plaintiff in error furnished to 'his eodefendamts copper and other materials to be used in making a still, as well as sugar and meal to be used in the manufacture of liquor.

One of the charges of the court was to the effect that this evidence, if believed, was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer a conspiracy between plaintiff in error and his codefendants to commit the offenses alleged. The assignments of error are based solely on this charge, to which it is-sought to give the construction that the mere sale of the , described materials to others, who had conspired to violate the law, was sufficient to make the seller a co-eonspirator. Clearly the charge will not hear thdt interpretation, and was proper, because it merely authorized the jury to infer an agreement to do what was actually done.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F.2d 614, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edenfield-v-united-states-ca5-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack