Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Schiller v. United States

Schiller v. United States, 35 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1929)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1929-11-12
Topic
general

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge. The appeal in this ease is wholly without merit. The information charged the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the maintenance of a common nuisance. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the sale count and guilty on the possession and nuisance counts. The testimony was ample to support the verdict on the two latter counts.

Citator

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

Cited by
4 opinions
SCHILLER v. UNITED STATES,35 F.2d 865(9th Cir. 1929)
SCHILLER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5813.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 12, 1929.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; Adolphus F. St. Sure, Judge.

Nathan Schiller was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and maintenance of a common nuisance, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Hubbard Hubbard, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

George J. Hatfield, U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.Page 866
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
The appeal in this case is wholly without merit. The information charged the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the maintenance of a common nuisance. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the sale count and guilty on the possession and nuisance counts. The testimony was ample to support the verdict on the two latter counts. There is a suggestion in the record that a search of the premises occupied by the appellant under a search warrant was illegal because the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the sale count, but no such question was raised in the court below. In any event, the proceedings relating to the search warrant are not in the record, and the validity of the warrant depended upon the showing made at the time of its issuance, and not upon the ultimate verdict of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.