Gee Woe v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge. Gee Woe was convicted of receiving and concealing three tins of smoking opium after importation, knowing the same to have been imported in violation of Act Feb. 9, 1909, c. 100, as amended hy Act Jan. 17, 1914, c. 9, and of being a dealer in opium without having registered and paid the tax required by Act Dec. 17, 1914, c. 1, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
GRUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error was tried on an indictment, which contained three counts. He was acquitted on the second count, and it requires no further consideration. The first count charged him with receiving and concealing three tins of smoking opium, after importation, knowing the same to have been imported in violation of the act of February 9, 1909, as amended by the act of January 17, 1914. The third count charged him with being a dealer in opium, and with not having registered and paid the special tax as required by the act of December 17, 1914.
[1-3] The plaintiff in error…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Jin Fuey MoySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Luria v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. Yee FingDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1915
3Cited by24 opinions
- Turner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Yee Hem v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Crapo v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Marcelino Perea Velasquez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
- Brightman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.