Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Barton v. United States

25 F.2d 967

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1928-04-23
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. We have examined the record in this case very carefully and find no error. The requests for instructions, in so far' as they were correct, were substantially covered by the careful charge of the learned trial judge. As to the refusal to direct a verdict for defendant on the second count of the indictment, we think that there was ample evidence to support the verdict on this count; but, if this were not true, defendant has no ground of complaint on this score, as the sentence imposed did not exceed that which might have been imposed under the first count alone. The exception directed to the exclusion of the testimony of his wife requires no discussion.

Citator

Barton v. United States has been questioned or limited by later authorities: relies on overruled authority: 41 S. Ct. 98 (overruled by Funk v. United States). Read them before relying on it. 1 later decision cites it.

Authority status
caution
Cited by
1 opinion
BARTON v. UNITED STATES,25 F.2d 967(4th Cir. 1928)
BARTON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 2715.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 23, 1928.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of South Carolina, at Greenwood; Henry H. Watkins, Judge.

E.B. Barton and another were convicted of an offense, and they bring error. Affirmed.
S.M. Smith, of Edgefield, S.C. (George Bell Timmerman, of Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Joseph A. Tolbert, U.S. Atty., of Greenville, S.C.
Before WADDILL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We have examined the record in this case very carefully and find no error. The requests for instructions, in so far as they were correct, were substantially covered by the careful charge of the learned trial judge.

As to the refusal to direct a verdict for defendant on the second count of the indictment, we think that there was ample evidence to support the verdict on this count; but, if this were not true, defendant has no ground of complaint on this score, as the sentence imposed did not exceed that which might have been imposed under the first count alone.

The exception directed to the exclusion of the testimony of his wife requires no discussion. The rule is well settled that in a criminal trial in the federal courts the wife of a defendant is not a competent witness in his behalf. Jin Fuey Moy v. U.S.,254 U.S. 189,195,41 S. Ct. 98,65 L. Ed. 214; Hendrix v. U.S.,219 U.S. 79,91,31 S. Ct. 193,55 L. Ed. 102.

Affirmed.Page 1017