Friedman v. United States

First Circuit

Friedman v. United States

233 F. 429, 147 C.C.A. 365, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided June 15, 1916·No. No. 1163·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

This indictment was laid under the act of February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670, c. 50 [U. S. Comp. St 1913, §§ 8603, 8604]), charging the defendant with unlawfully receiving and concealing certain brasses stolen from a box car at Springfield while constituting a part of a shipment from Concord, N. II., to Springfield, Mass. The merchandise belonged to the Boston & Maine Railroad, and was a part of its cars being forwarded to the repair shops of the railroad corporation.

[ 1 ] Claim is made that, as- this material was carried without compensation, and was all the time the property of the Boston & Maine Railroad, it was not within the statute. However, as it was being transported as freight, it was within the letter of the statute, and we know of no reason which takes it out of it. The same words are often [430] used in many different senses, but this word is appropriate for the application made of it here.

[2] Once in interstate commerce, we think the goods transported as freight retained the character thus acquired, and were under the protection of the act, like mail matter, until they reached their ultimate destination.

[3, 4] The plaintiff in error fails to satisfy us that the act, thus understood, violates any constitutional provision. Whoever receives stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, takes the risk, in our opinion, of their having been stolen during transportation in interstate commerce and of their being thus within the protection' of the act.

The plaintiff in error also fails to satisfy us that there was prejudicial error in any of the exclusions of testimony to which he excepted.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Footnotes

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

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

This indictment was laid under the act of February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670, c. 50 [U. S. Comp. St 1913, §§ 8603, 8604]), charging the defendant with unlawfully receiving and concealing certain brasses stolen from a box car at Springfield while constituting a part of a shipment from Concord, N. II., to Springfield, Mass. The merchandise belonged to the Boston & Maine Railroad, and was a part of its cars being forwarded to the repair shops of the railroad corporation.

[ 1 ] Claim is made that, as- this material was carried without compensation, and was all the time the property of the Boston & Maine Railroad, it was not within the statute. However, as it was being transported as freight, it was within the letter of the statute, and we know of no reason which takes it out of it. The same words are often [430] used in many different senses, but this word is appropriate for the application made of it here.

[2] Once in interstate commerce, we think the goods transported as freight retained the character thus acquired, and were under the protection of the act, like mail matter, until they reached their ultimate destination.

[3, 4] The plaintiff in error fails to satisfy us that the act, thus understood, violates any constitutional provision. Whoever receives stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, takes the risk, in our opinion, of their having been stolen during transportation in interstate commerce and of their being thus within the protection' of the act.

The plaintiff in error also fails to satisfy us that there was prejudicial error in any of the exclusions of testimony to which he excepted.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Footnotes

Friedman v. United States, 233 F. 429, 147 C.C.A. 365, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485 (1st Cir. 1916).

Pincite

233 F. 429 (Friedman v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related