Haughn v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Haughn v. United States

13 F.2d 75, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3496, 1926 A.M.C. 938

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 1926

DocketNo. 4762

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F.2d 75 (Haughn 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

Haughn v. United States, 13 F.2d 75, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3496, 1926 A.M.C. 938 (5th Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

POSTER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs in error were the master and crew of the British schooner Hazel E. Herman, which was seized on September 23, 1925, by the Coast Guard at a point 16 marine miles off the coast of Louisiana. They were convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138)4 et seq.), alleged to have occurred at said time and place.

Various errors are assigned, of which it is necessary to consider only those running t© [76]*76the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict The facts are similar to those appearing in the case of Hennings v. United States, 13 F.(2d) 74, decided this day. The motion to' direct should have been granted.

Reversed.

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

POSTER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs in error were the master and crew of the British schooner Hazel E. Herman, which was seized on September 23, 1925, by the Coast Guard at a point 16 marine miles off the coast of Louisiana. They were convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138)4 et seq.), alleged to have occurred at said time and place.

Various errors are assigned, of which it is necessary to consider only those running t© [76]*76the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict The facts are similar to those appearing in the case of Hennings v. United States, 13 F.(2d) 74, decided this day. The motion to' direct should have been granted.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F.2d 75, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3496, 1926 A.M.C. 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haughn-v-united-states-ca5-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack