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.
General
Frank C. PETERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; John CONEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
37 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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
Frank C. PETERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. John CONEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Nos. 4087, 4093.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1930.
W. W. Stoner and Maurice Chaitkin, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
Jos. A. Richardson, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Before BUPPINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In the court below, the Union Pishing Club was indicted, found guilty, and sentenced for sundry violations of the National Prohibition Law (27 USCA). It took no appeal. At the same time, John Coney, the cook of the Club, was indicted, in one count, for having in possession and for transporting liquor, and, in another, for selling liquor. On the first two counts he was acquitted. On the one for selling he was convicted and sentenced, whereupon he took this appeal, and the question involved is whether there was testimony in the case which warranted conviction. We are of opinion there was not. All the incriminating testimony bore on transportation and possession, on which Coney was acquitted. Outside of this, there was no testimony to support the count for selling. As to Peters, the other defendant, who was a waiter, the admission made by him when arrested warranted his conviction.
The sentence of judgment' of Coney is reversed; that of Peters is affirmed.