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.
KAJANDER et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1934 — 69 F.2d 222 · caselaw · US
General
KAJANDER et al. v. UNITED STATES
69 F.2d 222·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
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
KAJANDER et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6956.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1934.
E. M. Baynes, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellants.
John W. Holland, U. S. Atty., and Wm. A. Paisley, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Jacksonville, Fla.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BRYAN, Circuit Judge.]
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an indictment in two counts. The first charges appellants with transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA); and the second with facilitating concealment of liquor in a motorboat with knowledge that it had been unlawfully imported into the United States. Appellants were convicted on both counts.
The principal assignment is that the court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction. There is no doubt that the boat brought the liquor in from the ocean and continued to transport it inside across St. Lucie Inlet. The only question in dispute is whether appellants were in charge of and operating the boat. And as to that, there was sufficient evidence on behalf of the government to prove that they were. The other errors assigned are without merit,
Kajander was sentenced to imprisonment for two years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, Mobley's sentences were three years on the first count and two years on the second, designated to run concurrently also. Because of the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, the sentence of oach appellant on tlie first count is reversed and annulled. United States v. Chambers, 54 S. Ct. 434, 78 L. Ed.-.
The judgment and sentence on the second count is, as to each appellant, affirmed.