Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

United States v. Baxter

141 F.2d 359

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-02-17
Topic
general

EVANS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Baxter was charged with, and convicted of, a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq. He failed *360to report for induction into the military-service when ordered so .to do by the local draft board. He admits his refusal so to report but defends his action on the ground that he is a “minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and as such was not subject to the order which the board made and which was based on its finding that he was not-a duly ordained minister of the gospel.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. BAXTER,141 F.2d 359(7th Cir. 1944)
UNITED STATES v. BAXTER.
No. 8437.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
February 17, 1944.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; John P. Barnes, Judge.

Lester Eugene Baxter was convicted of a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 301 et seq., for failure to report for induction in compliance with order of local draft board, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.
Victor F. Schmidt of Middletown, Ohio, and Landon L. Chapman, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Francis J. McGreal, Asst. U.S. Atty., J. Albert Woll, U.S. Atty., and John Owen, Asst. U.S. Atty., all of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Baxter was charged with, and convicted of, a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq. He failedPage 360to report for induction into the military service when ordered so to do by the local draft board. He admits his refusal so to report but defends his action on the ground that he is a "minister of Jehovah's Witnesses" and as such was not subject to the order which the board made and which was based on its finding that he was not a duly ordained minister of the gospel.

On the trial of the criminal case he sought to retry the fact issue decided against him by the board, and the court refused to permit such a retrial. His appeal is based on the alleged error of the court in so ruling.

The numerous decisions of this and other courts to the contraryfn*were sustained by the Supreme Court in the case decided January 3, 1944, entitled Falbo v. United States,64 S.Ct. 346. Further discussion is unnecessary.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 361Page 436
  1. United States v. Mroz, 7 Cir.,136 F.2d 221; United States v. Van Den Berg, 7 Cir.,139 F.2d 654; United States v. Fratrick, Jr., 7 Cir.,140 F.2d 5; United States v. Sauler and Paulos, 7 Cir.,139 F.2d 173; United States v. Messersmith, 7 Cir.,138 F.2d 599; Goff v. United States, 4 Cir.,135 F.2d 610; Seele v. United States, 8 Cir.,133 F.2d 1015; United States v. Kauten, 2 Cir.,133 F.2d 703. ↩