Incardonia v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Incardonia v. United States

11 F.2d 607, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2563

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1926

DocketNo. 4629

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F.2d 607 (Incardonia 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

Incardonia v. United States, 11 F.2d 607, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2563 (5th Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, who was convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.), complains of the overruling of a motion to quash a search warrant, and of part of the charge given by the court. The motion to quash the search warrant was based on allegations to the effect that the premises searched were not those described in the search warrant. The record does not show that the evidence was such as to require the conclusion that those allegations were sustained. There was evidence tending to prove that the premises searched were those described in the search warrant. The part of the court’s charge which is complained of is not properly presented for review, as it was not separately excepted to, the exception reserved being to the charge as a whole. Obviously, much of the charge was' not subject to objection.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, who was convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.), complains of the overruling of a motion to quash a search warrant, and of part of the charge given by the court. The motion to quash the search warrant was based on allegations to the effect that the premises searched were not those described in the search warrant. The record does not show that the evidence was such as to require the conclusion that those allegations were sustained. There was evidence tending to prove that the premises searched were those described in the search warrant. The part of the court’s charge which is complained of is not properly presented for review, as it was not separately excepted to, the exception reserved being to the charge as a whole. Obviously, much of the charge was' not subject to objection.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.2d 607, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/incardonia-v-united-states-ca5-1926.