United States v. Pincourt

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

This appellant was indicted and tried twice apparently on the assumption that the original price regulation which is alleged to have been violated and which applied to “sales” of the particular distilled spirits involved also included “deliveries” thereof.1 It was after the appellant’s conviction as a result of the second trial and after this appeal had been taken that the situation was discovered. It is urged, among other grounds, as reversible error.

Appellant, with six others, was indicted for conspiracy to sell and deliver bottled domestic distilled spirits in…