Howard v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee; John E. McCall, Judge. Henry Howard and others were convicted of illegally distilling liquor contrary to the statutes relating to internal revenue, and they bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs in error were charged with ■so-called “moonshining,” under an indictment containing seven counts, 'based upon sections 3257, 3258, 3260, 3279, and 3296 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (Comp. St. §§ 5993, 5994, 5997, 6019, 6038), which relate to internal revenue. Bird was convicted upon the fifth count only. Howard and Stanford were convicted upon each of the seven counts, but their respective sentences were no gfeater than might have been imposed on one only of the counts. It is enough, as to them that the conviction be good as to either of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Abrams v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Robinson v. Van HooserCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Rochford v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- West v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Byers v. Carnegie Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
3Cited by8 opinions
- Robilio v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
- Baird v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Cleveland & Western Coal Co. v. Main Island Creek Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
- Laurie v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Halbert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.