United States v. Brown

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1271, 1 Mason C.C. 151

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

DecidedOctober 15, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. Cas. 1271 (United States v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Brown, 24 F. Cas. 1271, 1 Mason C.C. 151 (circtdma 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

STORY, Circuit Justice.

The act of congress declares, that every person, who shall purchase from a soldier his arms, uniform, clothing, or any part thereof, shall, on conviction, be’ liable to a limited fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court having cognizance of the offence. To bring the case within the statute, it is not necessary, that the arms should be strictly the absolute property of the soldier; for then the act would have no effect, as the arms used by the soldiers in the public service belong to the United States. It is sufficient, if the soldier have a special property therein by a bailment in the course- of the service; or have a lawful possession, using them as his own in the duties of the service. But if his possession be unlawful, or obtained by larceny, the arms are not in the sense of the act, “his arms.” It may be a blot in the act (and unfortunately there are many blots in our Criminal Code) but it is competent only for the legislature to cure the defect.

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

STORY, Circuit Justice.

The act of congress declares, that every person, who shall purchase from a soldier his arms, uniform, clothing, or any part thereof, shall, on conviction, be’ liable to a limited fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court having cognizance of the offence. To bring the case within the statute, it is not necessary, that the arms should be strictly the absolute property of the soldier; for then the act would have no effect, as the arms used by the soldiers in the public service belong to the United States. It is sufficient, if the soldier have a special property therein by a bailment in the course- of the service; or have a lawful possession, using them as his own in the duties of the service. But if his possession be unlawful, or obtained by larceny, the arms are not in the sense of the act, “his arms.” It may be a blot in the act (and unfortunately there are many blots in our Criminal Code) but it is competent only for the legislature to cure the defect.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. Cas. 1271, 1 Mason C.C. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brown-circtdma-1816.