Home/Ninth Circuit/McKnight v. United States

McKnight v. United States

78 F.2d 931, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3902
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 1935
DocketNo. 7721
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 78 F.2d 931 (McKnight v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKnight v. United States, 78 F.2d 931, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3902 (9th Cir. 1935).

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

The indictment herein charged appellant and his codefendants, Bley Stein and Robert E. Taylor, with violations of sections 37 and 212 of the Criminal Code, 18 USCA §§ 88, 335. The first count of the indictment charged the defendants with having conspired to violate section 212* by depositing in the mails postal cards containing language and delineations that were libelous, scurrilous, defamatory, and [932]*932Calculated by the terms, manner, and style of display, and obviously intended, to reflect injuriously upon the character and conduct of Stephen W. Cunningham, who at that time was a candidate for election to the city council of Los Angeles. The evidence limits the conspiracy charge to two certain postal cards, hereinafter set forth and referred to as card No. 1 and card No. 2, respectively. In three other counts the defendants were charged with having mailed, in violation of section 212, card No. 1, which card reads as follows:

DEFEAT CUNNINGHAM FOR COUNCIL
We Protest
-Many people' have been misinformed . . . and believe that Stephen W. Cunningham, candidate for council from the third district, is the “Graduate Manager” of the University of California at Los Angeles,
In view of the fact that he is, in truth, NOT a graduate of our University and since his gross mis-management of finances there has led to his dismissal, we believe, that this erroneous’ impression should be corrected.
ALUMNI PROTEST LEAGUE,
University of California at Los Angeles 215 West 7th Street
Card No. 2 is as follows:

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

Related

Estate of Sapp
California Court of Appeal, 2019
Armuress Sapp v. Rogers
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
United States v. Handler
383 F. Supp. 1267 (D. Maryland, 1974)
Buss v. J. O. Martin Co.
241 Cal. App. 2d 123 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Succession of Houssiere
174 So. 2d 521 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1965)
Preston McCrossen v. United States
339 F.2d 810 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)
United States v. Keller
158 F. Supp. 940 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1958)
Estate of Palm
156 P.2d 62 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
United States v. Barlow
56 F. Supp. 795 (D. Utah, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 F.2d 931, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-united-states-ca9-1935.