Vernon Clyatt Rewis and David Charles Johnson v. United States

242 F.2d 508, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2019, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820, 50 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 2019
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 1957
Docket16172_1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 508 (Vernon Clyatt Rewis and David Charles Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vernon Clyatt Rewis and David Charles Johnson v. United States, 242 F.2d 508, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2019, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820, 50 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 2019 (5th Cir. 1957).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By a three-count indictment, appellants were charged with violations of Title 26 U.S.C.A., §§ 2810, 2834, 2833. From a conviction upon the third count of the indictment under § 2833 for carrying on the business of a distiller without having given bond as required by law, this appeal is taken.

The defendants were found by agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit at a still in Nassau County, Florida. It was not operating. The appellant Johnson was chopping wood and the appellant Rewis was about to begin using a soldering iron. Rewis stated that the still be *509 longed to him and that Johnson “just came down there to help”. Nearby were grain and water in barrels which were not yet in the mash stage. Appellants took exception to the portion of the Court’s charge instructing the jury that they might be found guilty if they had commenced the business of distiller even though actual distillation had not been made. We think the instruction proper. It was contended that a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted because the still was not operating. We think the evidence was ample to sustain the conviction. Appellants contend that there should be no conviction absent affirmative proof that the appellants had not given bond as distillers as required by law. Such proof is not required as a part of the Government’s case. It will be presumed in situations such as there is here that no bond was given. Rossi v. United States, 289 U.S. 89, 53 S.Ct. 532, 77 L.Ed. 1051.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Pete Arendale
444 F.2d 1260 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Charles Anderson, Sr. v. United States
391 F.2d 243 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Roy Lee Burke v. United States
387 F.2d 905 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 F.2d 508, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2019, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820, 50 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernon-clyatt-rewis-and-david-charles-johnson-v-united-states-ca5-1957.