United States v. Hallowell
District Court, W.D. Washington
Criminal prosecution by the United States against Herbert Hallo-well. On demurrer to indictment. Authorities cited by plaintiff: Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 209 U. S. 84, 28 Sup. Ct. 428, 52 L. Ed. 681; Paraiso v. U. S., 207 U. S. 368, 28 Sup. Ct. 127, 52 L. Ed. 249; Redbetter v. U. S., 170 U. S. 606, 18 Sup.
Read the full summary
Criminal prosecution by the United States against Herbert Hallo-well. On demurrer to indictment. Authorities cited by plaintiff: Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 209 U. S. 84, 28 Sup. Ct. 428, 52 L. Ed. 681; Paraiso v. U. S., 207 U. S. 368, 28 Sup. Ct. 127, 52 L. Ed. 249; Redbetter v. U. S., 170 U. S. 606, 18 Sup. Ct. 774, 42 L. Ed. 1162; Clement v. U. S., 149 Fed. 305, 79 C. C. A. 243; U. S. v. Swift (D. C.) 188 Fed. 99; Brown v. U. S., 143 Fed. 60, 74 C. C. A. 214; U. S. v. McEwan (C. C.) 44 Fed. 594. Authorities cited by defendant: U. S. v. Baird (D. C.) 48 Fed. 554; U. S. v. Pitotto (D. C.)…
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
The indictment is in two counts. Count 1 charges:
“That the defendant did * * * assault, resist * * * a certain officer of the Treasury Department, * * * a duly qualified federal prohibition officer, * * * to make searches and seizures while * * * he was engaged in the execution of his duties.”
Count 2 charges the willful destruction of a quart bottle of whisky which had “been lawfully seized by one * * * who was then and
there a person duly authorized to make searches and seizures, to wit, a duly qualified federal prohibition officer,” the defendant knowing him to be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cooper v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- United States v. PageDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1921
- United States v. SandsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
- Hlabse v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Bowles v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932