Palmer v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Palmer v. United States

6 F.2d 145, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1977

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1925

DocketNo. 4267

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 F.2d 145 (Palmer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palmer v. United States, 6 F.2d 145, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1977 (6th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The points elaborately argued in the brief for plaintiff in error are largely raised for the first time in this court, and those cannot be considered.

The indictment charges that Palmer was informed against “as a first offense,” and pleaded guilty of possession (section 3, title 2, National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. [146]*146Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%aa]), August 12, 1922; that on March 5, 1923, he had a further information filed against him “as a second offense” for possession of intoxicating liquor, and was convicted on March 12, 1923; and charges that the third offense for which this indictment was brought was committed on January 4, 1924. We regard this indictment as sufficient to support a conviction fot a third offense. Dolan v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 4 F.(2d) 251, filed March 16, 1925.

The indictment charges possession of “intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.” It is criticized because it does not say that the liquor was “fit” for beverage purposes. We know of no rule or principle which requires such further allegation.. Fitness is only evidence of purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The points elaborately argued in the brief for plaintiff in error are largely raised for the first time in this court, and those cannot be considered.

The indictment charges that Palmer was informed against “as a first offense,” and pleaded guilty of possession (section 3, title 2, National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. [146]*146Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%aa]), August 12, 1922; that on March 5, 1923, he had a further information filed against him “as a second offense” for possession of intoxicating liquor, and was convicted on March 12, 1923; and charges that the third offense for which this indictment was brought was committed on January 4, 1924. We regard this indictment as sufficient to support a conviction fot a third offense. Dolan v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 4 F.(2d) 251, filed March 16, 1925.

The indictment charges possession of “intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.” It is criticized because it does not say that the liquor was “fit” for beverage purposes. We know of no rule or principle which requires such further allegation.. Fitness is only evidence of purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F.2d 145, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 1977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-united-states-ca6-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack