Maes v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Maes v. United States

287 F. 137, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2317

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1923

DocketNo. 2037

StatusPublished

This text of 287 F. 137 (Maes v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maes v. United States, 287 F. 137, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2317 (4th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSE, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was the defendant below and will be so styled herein. He was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). The testimony offered on behalf of the government was,: if believed by the jury, amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The-liquor in question consisted of various kinds of fruit extracts. There is direct evidence that the defendant kept them and sold them for beverage purpose, and that they were in fact intoxicating. The case ap-: [138]*138pears to have been fairly tried and properly submitted to the jury. We have examined the various assignments of error and find no merit in any of them.

Affirmed.

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

ROSE, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was the defendant below and will be so styled herein. He was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). The testimony offered on behalf of the government was,: if believed by the jury, amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The-liquor in question consisted of various kinds of fruit extracts. There is direct evidence that the defendant kept them and sold them for beverage purpose, and that they were in fact intoxicating. The case ap-: [138]*138pears to have been fairly tried and properly submitted to the jury. We have examined the various assignments of error and find no merit in any of them.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 F. 137, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maes-v-united-states-ca4-1923.