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.
DAVIS v. UNITED STATES, 1929 — 32 F.2d 607 · caselaw · US
General
DAVIS v. UNITED STATES
32 F.2d 607·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1929
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
DAVIS v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 19, 1929.
No. 8253.
Warren K. Snyder and Edward C. Snyder, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Atty., and Herbert K. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, Okl.
Before KENYON, Circuit Judge, and FARIS and SANBORN, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — KENTON, Circuit Judge.]
KENTON, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information in two counts with violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). He was acquitted on the second count, and convicted on the first, which charged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, to W. C. Sexton and W. C. Adams. The only question urged here is that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of illegal sale. It is doubtful if the question is here at all, as no motion for an instructed verdict was made at the close of all the evidence. A demurrer to the evidence in the nature of a motion was filed at the close of the government’s case, and no evidence was introduced on the part of the defense except that of the defendant himself. One witness, W. C. Sexton, testified directly to the purchase of a quart of whisky from the defendant and the payment of $10 therefor. He was an undercover man for the government working under Mr. Dowell, who was a special officer in the Indian service. The defendant, Davis, denied the sale. That was all the direct evidence on the subject. Evidently the jury believed the government’s witness, and did not believe the defendant. It was within the province of the jury so to do. It is not for us to pass on the credibility of the witnesses.
There is nothing of merit in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed.