James Malcolm Bearden v. United States
This text of 271 F.2d 708 (James Malcolm Bearden 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
In this appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict forfeiting certain property as “property intended for use” in the illegal manufacture of distilled spirits, the only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict. The record discloses that appellant made no motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Thus, no ruling of the trial court can be pointed to as constituting error. In the absence of such motion and order thereon or a showing, which is not made here, of plain error working manifest injustice. Cf. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, 5 Cir., 264 F.2d 161, an appeal based on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence presents nothing to this Court for review. Stokes v. Continental Assurance Co., 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 893; Williams v. National, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 771.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
271 F.2d 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-malcolm-bearden-v-united-states-ca5-1959.