Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Hargrove v. United States

Hargrove v. United States, 139 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1944)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-01-07
Topic
general

WALLER, Circuit Judge. We are not triers of fact. The law, in its wisdom, does not authorize this, court to substitute the reactions as to the facts which it gains from a perusal of the cold, printed type for those of the lower court which saw and heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor on the stand, and thus was placed in far better position to know the true and false than this court; and where, as here, we cannot say that there was no substantial evidence upon which the verdict and judgment of the lower court was based, the verdict and judgment of the court below will not be disturbed. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hargrove v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
HARGROVE v. UNITED STATES,139 F.2d 1014(5th Cir. 1944)
HARGROVE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10559.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 7, 1944.
Rehearing Denied February 7, 1944.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Walter A. Keeling, Judge.

C.M. Hargrove was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Affirmed.
Leonard Brown and Leo Brewer, both of San Antonio, Tex., and Warren O. Coleman, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Ben F. Foster, U.S. Atty., and James M. Burnett, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
WALLER, Circuit Judge.
We are not triers of fact. The law, in its wisdom, does not authorize this court to substitute the reactions as to the facts which it gains from a perusal of the cold, printed type for those of the lower court which saw and heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor on the stand, and thus was placed in far better position to know the true and false than this court; and where, as here, we cannot say that there was no substantial evidence upon which the verdict and judgment of the lower court was based, the verdict and judgment of the court below will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.Page 1014