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.
KAUZ v. UNITED STATES, 1930 — 41 F.2d 57 · caselaw · US
General
KAUZ v. UNITED STATES
41 F.2d 57·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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
KAUZ v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5646.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 9, 1930.
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1930.
R. A. Hendricks, of Miami, Fla.^ (R. A. Hendricks, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.
D. Heywood Hardy, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (Wilburn P. Hughes, of Jacksonville, Fla., and D. Heywood Hardy, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States
Before I^YAN and 1 OSIER, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — DAWKINS, District Judge.]
DAWKINS, District Judge.
Defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence for violating the National Prohibition Law, (27 USCA). He assigns as error numerous rulings of the lower court as to the admissibility of evidence on the trial, as ' well as to charges to the jury, given and refused. We find in the re¿ord what is termed “a brief of evidence on appeal,” what purports to be the charge of the court, the verdiet of the jury, a motion for a new trial, with the order signed by the court overruling it, petition for appeal, etc., and, finally a doeument labeled “Exceptions and Assignments of Error on Appeal.” The last-mentioned assigns as error certain rulings upon the evidence which it purports to quote from the record, and also excerpts from the charge of the court, as well as special charges which H 1® claimed the court refused to give. But neither the purported transcript of the evidence nor the exception and assignments of error are signed or verified by the judge.
In this state of the record, none of the matters complained of are properly before us. Weathers v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 296 F. 702.
Finding no error upon the face of the record, the verdict and sentence are affirmed.