The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 41
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WIGGINS V. UNITED STATES 41
(272 F )
the petition by reference. It is therefore wholly immaterial at which
factory the sugar was manufactured.
[1, 7] It is also urged that the damages are excessive, upon the the-
ory that, if defendant had delivered the sugar, plaintiff would only have
been able to realize a profit of one cent or two cents per pound, de-
pending upon whether it sold the sugar at wholesale or at retail. The
amount of damages was properly left to the jury, and there is nothing
in the instructions which could possibly have harmed the defendant.
The Food Administration could not, under the provisions of the act of
Congress (Comp. St 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 31151/e-
3115ijkk, 311571/-31151/8r) which created it, arbitrarily fix the price at
which future sales should be made. That remained a question finally to
be determined by a jury, as it was in this case, under instructions that
appear to be entirely correct.
Defendant produced enough sugar to fulfill its contracts. There
were not sufficient weather or other conditions beyond defendant's
control to prevent fulfillment, and there was no action of the Food Ad-
ministration which operated to relieve defendant of its obligations.
The assignments of error are very numerous, but they only raise in
various ways the questions which have been considered, and no error
prejudicial to the defendant is made to appear by any of them.
The judgment is affirmed.
WIGGINS v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 9, 1921.)
1. Criminal law @=409-Admission sullfficient proof of ownership.
In a prosecution under National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, tit. 2,
21, for maintaining a nuisance by keeping a place where liquors were kept
and sold, the voluntary admission of defendant to the officers making the
arrest that he was proprietor of the place and owner of the liquors held
sufficient proof of such fact.
2. Criminal law 0=693-Legality of method of obtaining evidence not open to
inquiry at trial.
A collateral inquiry into the mode by which evidence offered has been
obtained will not be allowed, when the question is raised for the first time
at the trial.
3. Intoxicating liquors 4=143-Proof of knowledge of sale not necessary to
sustain conviction for maintaining nuisance.
Where there was sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that a defend-
ant maintained a nuisance in violation of the National Prohibition Act,
by keeping intoxicating liquors in his saloon for sale, it was not neces-
sary to prove that he had knowledge of any actual sale.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the South-
ern District of New York.
Criminal prosecution by the United States against Albert H. Wig-
gins. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
:For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/63/: accessed June 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.