Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William J. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1930 — 40 F.2d 891 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
William J. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
40 F.2d 891·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William J. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 8788.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 16, 1930.
William K. Amick, of St. Joseph, Mo., for appellant.
William L. Vandeventer, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Chet A. Keyes, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — STONE, Circuit Judge.]
STONE, Circuit Judge.
From a conviction on three counts of an indictment charging violation of the National Prohibition Law, this appeal is brought.
Appellant was indicted on three counts, the first two counts were for sales, upon separate days, of small amounts of whisky at the northwest comer of Second and Felix streets, St. Joseph, Mo., the third count was for maintaining" a liquor nuisance at that place. After presentation of evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty upon all counts, and the court entered a judgment and sentence of two years upon the first and second counts, to run consecutively, and a fine of $250 on the third count. The record brought here -contains none of the evidence.
The points argued here are identically those presented by the same counsel in Hugh McElvogue v. United States, 40 F.(2d) 889. For the reasons expressed in the opinion in that case, we think the judgment in this case should be, and it is, affirmed.