Ritkofsky v. United States

Third Circuit

Ritkofsky v. United States

60 F.2d 267, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2503

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 1932

DocketNo. 4849

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 F.2d 267 (Ritkofsky v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ritkofsky v. United States, 60 F.2d 267, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2503 (3d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence -by the District Court for the District of New Jersey upon an indictment charging the defendant with transportation and possession of 215 gallons of distilled spirits, being intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half per cent, of alcohol and fit for use for beverage purposes. By agreement the case was tried before the District Judge without a jury.

The testimony showed that a police officer of Jersey City, while patrolling the Newark turnpike, noticed a truck, loaded with large packing eases, which aroused his suspicions. He stopped the truck, noticed that the license tags were not fastened securely, examined one of the cases, and found 45 five-gallon cans of alcohol. The alcohol tested 92.7 per cent, by volume, and was fit for bevei-age purposes. Defendant, the driver of the truck, testified that he had taken a load of lumber from New York to Newark; that he was hired by a stranger to take a load back to New York; that the truck was loaded in his absence; and that he had no knowledge that the load concealed alcohol. He testified that the truck did not belong to him.

It is undisputed that the seizure was made solely qn suspicion, and that, when the officer discovered the violation, he knew that the seizure would be turned over to the. federal authorities for prosecution. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that there was no. probable cause for the search. That motion was denied, and the case went to the judge on the evidence without exception to the denial of the motion to suppress. The judge found the defendant guilty, and sentenced him to fine and imprisonment.

The defendant must be deemed to have abandoned his objections and have rested his ease upon the evidence. In the absence of manifest injustice, this court will not review, upon appeal, alleged erroneous rulings of the trial court to which no exceptions have boon taken. Bilboa v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 125; Finley v. United States (C. C. A.) 256 F. 845. Wo think the evidence presented sustains the finding of the defendant’s guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence -by the District Court for the District of New Jersey upon an indictment charging the defendant with transportation and possession of 215 gallons of distilled spirits, being intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half per cent, of alcohol and fit for use for beverage purposes. By agreement the case was tried before the District Judge without a jury.

The testimony showed that a police officer of Jersey City, while patrolling the Newark turnpike, noticed a truck, loaded with large packing eases, which aroused his suspicions. He stopped the truck, noticed that the license tags were not fastened securely, examined one of the cases, and found 45 five-gallon cans of alcohol. The alcohol tested 92.7 per cent, by volume, and was fit for bevei-age purposes. Defendant, the driver of the truck, testified that he had taken a load of lumber from New York to Newark; that he was hired by a stranger to take a load back to New York; that the truck was loaded in his absence; and that he had no knowledge that the load concealed alcohol. He testified that the truck did not belong to him.

It is undisputed that the seizure was made solely qn suspicion, and that, when the officer discovered the violation, he knew that the seizure would be turned over to the. federal authorities for prosecution. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that there was no. probable cause for the search. That motion was denied, and the case went to the judge on the evidence without exception to the denial of the motion to suppress. The judge found the defendant guilty, and sentenced him to fine and imprisonment.

The defendant must be deemed to have abandoned his objections and have rested his ease upon the evidence. In the absence of manifest injustice, this court will not review, upon appeal, alleged erroneous rulings of the trial court to which no exceptions have boon taken. Bilboa v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 125; Finley v. United States (C. C. A.) 256 F. 845. Wo think the evidence presented sustains the finding of the defendant’s guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 F.2d 267, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritkofsky-v-united-states-ca3-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack