Stephens v. Biddle

Eighth Circuit

Stephens v. Biddle

20 F.2d 662, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2616

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1927

DocketNo. 7596

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 F.2d 662 (Stephens v. Biddle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephens v. Biddle, 20 F.2d 662, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2616 (8th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks release from imprisonment resulting from his conviction of a charge in an indictment that he had possession of one pint of whisky in Tulsa county, Old.; the place where the said liquor was so had, possessed, and kept being a part of the Indian Territory before Oklahoma was admitted as a state. The offense charged, and of which appellant was convicted, is defined by the Act of June 30, 1919 (41 Stat. 4; U. S. Comp. Stat. 1923 Supp. § 4137aa). His petition for the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and he appeals.

Our inquiry is limited to the subject of jurisdiction of the trial court which sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, and as to that there can be no doubt. We have sustained convictions under the Act of June 30, 1919, many times. See Sharp v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 876, and cases there cited. We decline to again consider and discuss attacks on that act. This appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks release from imprisonment resulting from his conviction of a charge in an indictment that he had possession of one pint of whisky in Tulsa county, Old.; the place where the said liquor was so had, possessed, and kept being a part of the Indian Territory before Oklahoma was admitted as a state. The offense charged, and of which appellant was convicted, is defined by the Act of June 30, 1919 (41 Stat. 4; U. S. Comp. Stat. 1923 Supp. § 4137aa). His petition for the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and he appeals.

Our inquiry is limited to the subject of jurisdiction of the trial court which sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, and as to that there can be no doubt. We have sustained convictions under the Act of June 30, 1919, many times. See Sharp v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 876, and cases there cited. We decline to again consider and discuss attacks on that act. This appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F.2d 662, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-biddle-ca8-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack