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
JAMES v. UNITED STATES
61 F.2d 912·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1932
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
JAMES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6528.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 1932.
Clyde W. Mays, of Port Worth, Tex., for appellant.
C. W. Johnson, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Alfred Crager, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Port Worth, Tex.
Before BRYAN, POSTER, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit' judges.
Rehearing denied January 10, 1033.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted. upon an indictment which charged her with the sale .of six ounces of..morphine in. violation of 26 USCA § 692, and appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in overruling her demurrer in which she took the position that the indictment was fatally defective in that it did not allege that morphine is a salt or a derivative of opium. In our opinion the allegation was not necessary, since the trial court was entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that morphine is a derivative of opium. Hughes v. United States (C. C. A.) 253 F. 543.
The judgment is affirmed.