Hansen v. United States
This text of 24 F.2d 104 (Hansen 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.
Opinion
Plaintiffs in error were convicted as charged in an indictment which alleges a conspiracy to import intoxicating liquor into the United States without a permit from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, “as required by the provisions of Schedule 87 of the Tariff Act of 1922.” The permit is required by Schedule 8, § 1, of Tariff Act 1922 (19 USCA § 121, Schedule 8); there is no Schedule 87, and, because of this mistake in the indictment, it is insisted that the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty. The whole phrase ábove quoted is mere surplusage; it adds nothing to the crime alleged, is a mere conclusion of law, and its omission would have been immaterial. The other assignments of error are equally untenable.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 F.2d 104, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 1976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-united-states-ca5-1928.