Francis v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Francis v. United States

264 F. 513, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1920

DocketNo. 3345

StatusPublished

This text of 264 F. 513 (Francis v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis v. United States, 264 F. 513, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1286 (6th Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon two counts of an indictment under White Slave Act June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825 (Comp. St. § 8812 et seq.); the one charging him with procuring and purchasing a railroad ticket for the transportation of a girl about 16 years of age from Rockwood, Tenn., to Cincinnati, Ohio, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery, the other for persuading and inducing the girl named to be so transported from Oakdale, Tenn., to Cincinnati, Ohio, with the purpose and intent of effecting such prostitution and debauchery. There was no motion to direct verdict, and no exception to the charge. The motion for new trial was denied.

The errors assigned are aimed solely at the sufficiency of the evidence. The criticism is without merit. The evidence was amply sufficient to support conviction, even had there been motion to direct verdict. It is immaterial that, as the evidence indicated, the girl did not participate in the unlawful purpose with which defendant took her to Cincinnati, or, as the record also indicates, that the transaction lacked commercial character. Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U. S. 326, 33 Sup. Ct. 285, 57 L. Ed. 528, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 911; Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 Sup. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon two counts of an indictment under White Slave Act June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825 (Comp. St. § 8812 et seq.); the one charging him with procuring and purchasing a railroad ticket for the transportation of a girl about 16 years of age from Rockwood, Tenn., to Cincinnati, Ohio, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery, the other for persuading and inducing the girl named to be so transported from Oakdale, Tenn., to Cincinnati, Ohio, with the purpose and intent of effecting such prostitution and debauchery. There was no motion to direct verdict, and no exception to the charge. The motion for new trial was denied.

The errors assigned are aimed solely at the sufficiency of the evidence. The criticism is without merit. The evidence was amply sufficient to support conviction, even had there been motion to direct verdict. It is immaterial that, as the evidence indicated, the girl did not participate in the unlawful purpose with which defendant took her to Cincinnati, or, as the record also indicates, that the transaction lacked commercial character. Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U. S. 326, 33 Sup. Ct. 285, 57 L. Ed. 528, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 911; Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 Sup. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F. 513, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-united-states-ca6-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack