Keller v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Keller v. United States

168 F. 697, 94 C.C.A. 368, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4494

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 1909

DocketNo. 1,521

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 168 F. 697 (Keller v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keller v. United States, 168 F. 697, 94 C.C.A. 368, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4494 (7th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The indictment charged plaintiff in error with feloniously taking and carrying away “six blank checks with stubs attached, each of the value of one cent, of the goods and personal property of the United States.” Section 5456, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3683), makes it a felony to steal “any kind or description of property belonging to the United States.” Tn support of the assignment that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to, the indictment, [698]*698the contention is made that “blaqk checks” do not constitute property. While the promise or the grant or. the obligation that may be expressed on paper is not a subject of larceny, it seems to us as' futile to claim that “blank checks” are not within section 5456 as it would be to say that the “legal blanks” in a lawyer’s office or at a stationer’s are not susceptible of ownership.

Respecting the charge, no claim is made that the questions of law involved in the case were not fully' and accurately stated to the jury. The exceptions rest on the mistaken assumption that it was error for the judge to review the evidence and express any opinion in relation thereto. Such expression is permissible in the federal courts, provided the jurors are instructed that the decision of questions of fact must be made by them. Allis v. U. S., 155 U. S. 117, 15 Sup. Ct. 36, 39 L. Ed. 91.

The assertion that the court, “when the motion for a new trial was made, summarily refused to allow said motion to be set for argument, but, on the contrary, overruled it, without any consideration whatever,” is not sustained by the record, which shows that counsel for plaintiff in error stated the grounds of the motion and presented his argument in support thereof, and that the court, “having heard said argument, and upon consideration,” overruled the motion. Compare Gourdain v. U. S., 154 Fed. 453, 83 C. C. A. 309.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The indictment charged plaintiff in error with feloniously taking and carrying away “six blank checks with stubs attached, each of the value of one cent, of the goods and personal property of the United States.” Section 5456, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3683), makes it a felony to steal “any kind or description of property belonging to the United States.” Tn support of the assignment that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to, the indictment, [698]*698the contention is made that “blaqk checks” do not constitute property. While the promise or the grant or. the obligation that may be expressed on paper is not a subject of larceny, it seems to us as' futile to claim that “blank checks” are not within section 5456 as it would be to say that the “legal blanks” in a lawyer’s office or at a stationer’s are not susceptible of ownership.

Respecting the charge, no claim is made that the questions of law involved in the case were not fully' and accurately stated to the jury. The exceptions rest on the mistaken assumption that it was error for the judge to review the evidence and express any opinion in relation thereto. Such expression is permissible in the federal courts, provided the jurors are instructed that the decision of questions of fact must be made by them. Allis v. U. S., 155 U. S. 117, 15 Sup. Ct. 36, 39 L. Ed. 91.

The assertion that the court, “when the motion for a new trial was made, summarily refused to allow said motion to be set for argument, but, on the contrary, overruled it, without any consideration whatever,” is not sustained by the record, which shows that counsel for plaintiff in error stated the grounds of the motion and presented his argument in support thereof, and that the court, “having heard said argument, and upon consideration,” overruled the motion. Compare Gourdain v. U. S., 154 Fed. 453, 83 C. C. A. 309.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F. 697, 94 C.C.A. 368, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-united-states-ca7-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack