The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 88
xv, 1025 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
250 FEDERAL REPORTER
Ginnis, U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United
States.
Before HOOK, CARLAND, and STONE, Circuit Judges.
HOOK, Circuit Judge. De Moss and Moore complain of a convic-
tion and sentences for introducing intoxicating liquor from outside
the state of Oklahoma into that part of the state which was formerly
Indian Territory, in violation of the Act of March 1, 1895, 28 Stat. 693.
A large amount of whisky was purchased of a dealer in Kansas City,
Mo., put in empty lime barrels, and shipped by railroad to Tulsa, Okl.,
where it was seized by public officers.
[1] It is urged that the act of 1895, as limited to interstate com-
merce by the Oklahoma Enabling Act, is unconstitutional, because it
discriminates between the states in respect of trade and commerce in
intoxicating liquors. A like contention was made in Creekmore v.
United States, 150 C. C. A. 497, 237 Fed. 743, 755, L. R. A. 1917C, 845.
It is answered in Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 531,
542, 35 Sup. Ct. 291, 59 L. Ed. 705.
[2] Complaint is also made of the admission of oral testimony as to
the amount of a check given by De Moss in payment for the liquor and
the name of the bank on which it was drawn, the check not being pro-
duced or its absence adequately excused. The connection of both De
Moss and Moore with the purchase and shipment of the liquor was
otherwise shown so clearly and indisputably that the testimony in ques-
tion, even if incompetent, could have caused no prejudice. It was
proved without contradiction that De Moss gave his check for the
liquor bought at Kansas City, that when it reached the bank at Tulsa
it was not paid at once for lack of funds, that Moore arranged with
the bank to hold it until a deposit was made to cover it, and that it was
finally paid and charged to the account of De Moss. The precise
amount of the check was not important, though even that was shown
by other testimony without objection or contradiction.
[3] It is also claimed that the identity of the liquor bought and put
in a car at Kansas City with the liquor seized at Tulsa was not proved.
We think it was, though the government was much hampered in trac-
ing the car by objections which we do not regard as sound. Proof of
a fact, even in a criminal case, need not be made beyond every possi-
bility of mistake. Evidence is to be taken in a practical, reasonable
way, and regard given to well-known, settled methods of business.
[41 The trial court refused to instruct the jury that the accused
were presumed to be persons of good character and that the presump-
tion should be considered in determining their guilt or innocence.
There was no evidence upon the subject. We have held several times
that in a trial for crime there is no presumption of good character of
the accused. Chambliss v. United States, 132 C. C. A. 112, 218 Fed.
154; Price v. United States. 132 C. C. A. 1, 218 Fed. 149, L. R. A.
1915D, 1070; Greer v. United States, 153 C. C. A. 246, 240 Fed. 320.
The last case went to the Supreme Court by certiorari and was recently
affirmed. Greer v. United States, 245 U. S. 559, 38 Sup. Ct. 209, 62
L. Ed. - (January 28, 1918).
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/103/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.