Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Fabian v. United States

Fabian v. United States, 15 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1926)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1926-11-19
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. After careful examination of this record, we think the propositions of law concerning which plaintiff in error now complains were all set forth in the colloquial charge of the eourt, to which no exception was taken. We repeat what was said in Gruher v. United States, 255 F. 474, 166 C. C.

Citator

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

Cited by
24 opinions
FABIAN v. UNITED STATES,15 F.2d 696(2nd Cir. 1926)
FABIAN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 85.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 19, 1926.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Joseph Fabian was convicted of an offense, and he brings error. Affirmed.
M. Michael Edelstein, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Emory R. Buckner, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Robert B. Watts, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After careful examination of this record, we think the propositions of law concerning which plaintiff in error now complains were all set forth in the colloquial charge of the court, to which no exception was taken.

We repeat what was said in Gruher v. United States, 255 F. 474, 166 C.C.A. 550, as to our right to notice a plain error without exception, but we only do it to prevent injustice. This evidence shows conclusively that no injustice was done in finding the plaintiff in error guilty.

We likewise again point out that a trial judge is entirely justified in refusing to consider requests to charge first tendered after the close of his colloquial instructions to the jury. See La Fountain v. United States (C.C.A.)14 F.2d 562.

Judgment affirmed.Page 697