General
George HAUGHRAN, alias George Miller, and Dallas M. Francis, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant in Error
1 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1924
Before DONAHUE, MAOK. and KNAPPJBN, Circuit Judges.
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
George HAUGHRAN, alias George Miller, and Dallas M. Francis, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 17, 1924.)
No. 4134.
In Error to the District Court of the United Slates for the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Ohio; John E. Sater, Judge.
C. C. Middleswart, of Marietta, Ohio (Edw. B. Follett, of Marietta, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error. Benson W. Hough, Dana F. Reynolds, and W. B. Bartels, all of Columbus, Ohio, for defendant in error.
Before DONAHUE, MAOK. and KNAPPJBN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
It appears from the record and briefs in this case and the statement of counsel in open court that the sole contention of plaintiffs in error is that the verdict of the jury is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. This court has no authority to consider and determine the weight of the evidence. R. S. § 1011 (Comp. Stat. § 1672); Roth v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 475; Bullock v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 289 F. 29, 32. Judgment affirmed.