*1 mond,” election, then general a similar one of did vote such contention was at support upon grounds at sus his declaration that will the defendant’s demurrer of the the ensuing the the nominees of tained in face of eleetion the suit. the same On the vote. party, he shall allowed to record in the decision of the be state court the challenged, judge equity city he shall make his declaration of the of the law court ' appellee oath.” of Richmond, right as to the of the to a Primary> vote aot saeh tte question presents itself is The first that ^as judi plea men^ 85 the of res would the ruling the court below as to the of ca^a> that, had the Vir- admitted It demurrer. is sought estop- it apply “Where is the to sought the re- make ginia statute itself to pel upon cause judgment a rendered persons should white that quirement upon arising in a suit a action to matters have the would any primary, statute vote inquiry action, different the must cause yet unconstitutional, is contended it always actually point be as to the delegates the because statute appellants that original the ae- litigated and determined in aus- whose respective under parties, the to litigated might have tion, not been thus what pro- right held, to is the primary the pices is upon matters Only such determined. voters, qualifi- such as to qualifications vide action.” judgment in another the conclusive is not persons to white when limited cation Myers Co., 263 U. S. v. International violation not in is of itself unlawful L. Ed. 165. Amendments and Fifteenth Fourteenth the United States. the appellants, hav- Constitution the The here is whether issue appellants, contended, words, primary other it eleetion jng judges in the become may do in- Virginia Legislature appellee permit the that refused to having directly, do it could not directly that which re- vote, damages such respond agree. contention, If we cannot this With fusal. political parties in state of Vir- the all the provision in It is alsocontended that the incorporated qualifications ginia same the Virginia law, providing in primary part the the Demo- regulations as rules did their pri expenses payment for the in the nobody participate could party, cratic treasury mary public question out except persons, and primary, white held, primary is locality such in which the thereby deprived of mate- be races would necessary do not think valid. We is not Con- right guaranteed to them rial being pertinent into this right is, as amended: stitution the issues involved. .aodiddo, ¡a .o partidpat, a. «.«do» judgment The for m eleetion. be voted affirmed. the court below is accordingly demurrer, points raised On rendering his decision filed judge below in opinion. F.(2d) 177. well-considered judge the learned opinion This shows that carefully points involved. considered the and conclusion agree reasoning We HOLT v. UNITED STATES. adopt it as our opinion, out set No. 5580. de- opinion questions involved Appeals, Circuit Court of Sixth Circuit. murrer. June points plea involved in On the plea was judicata, based res brought appellee against appellants, suit qí city equity in the law court Richmond, asking that a writ mandamus against appellants, requiring be issued , -r-,.. , , ,, , ., . .. ... plaintiff vote>m permit said them opinion judge primary, we are clearly right m rejecting plea. below involved precise here different issue the mandamus suit. In the from filed in the state court defendants an suit they at saying, “that were not answer primary judges in eleetion to time 1928, in April 23, the City held on Rich *2 company’s delivered at the warehouse Chicago the morning. 'next The trailer was
left
company’s
owners at the
Detroit
warehouse,
dock,
or
loading,
for
and was
turned over
fully
to the drivers
and
loaded
by tarpaulin.
covered
paid'
Holt then
them
expenses
$20 for
and
waybills,
delivered the
previously
he had
out,
made
purport
ing to show
prepaid
shipment, among
others, of 117 boxes of “Anieon” tablets
from the C. E. Jamieson Company, manufac
turing chemists of Detroit,
to the Inieon
Company in Chicago, and nine boxes from
Crane Company, Detroit, to Baer Brothers
plumbing contractors, 1252 South Crawford
avenue, Chicago. The
stenciled,
boxes were
either
error
design
or
distinguish
them,
from
Drug
“Jamieson
Company,”
instead of
E.C.
Co.;
Jamieson
“Anaein”
both,
misspelled “Anieon”
designating
con
tents
and
the name of the consignee; and
“Crane” misspelled as “Craine.”
WEST,
Judge, dissenting.
District
truck reached
vicinity
Sturgis, Mich.,
way
on its
Chicago,
it lost
wheel,
and while it was
prohi-
so disabled,
bition
agents,
enforcement
who
patrol-
were
ling
highway,
stopped
inspected
and
load. When was
discovered
boxes
supposed
Anaein
tablets
fact each
contained three
beer,
eases of
and the 9 boxes
supposed
plumbing supplies each con-
tained four cases of whisky,
liquor
was
Markle,
Detroit,
(Doug
Mich.
H. C.
seized and the drivers arrested. They, of
Mich.,
Wing,
Detroit,
las, Barbour
course, pleaded complete ignorance of the
appellant.
brief), for
contents of their load, and H’olt was subse-
Grettenberger,
Rapids,
of Grand
H.
quently indicted and convicted,
prin-
as a
Bowman,
Rap-
(Edward
of Grand
Mich.
J.
cipal, by reason of
participation
ids, Mich.,
brief),
United illegal
transportation of
intoxicating
liquors.
States.
When the case
trial,
was called for
a mo-
HICKENLOOPER,
HICKS and
Before
tion
suppress
was made to
and withhold from
WEST,
Judge.
Judges, and
District
Circuit
jury
all
evidence obtained
the seizure
officers,
for the
reason
the search
HICKENLOOPER, Circuit
and seizure had been without search war-
Raymond Holt, was the
appellant,
rant,
thus in
claimed violation of the
gen
garage, dispatcher and
foreman
Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution
Chicago-Detroit Ex
man of the
office
eral
denied,
United States. This motion was
company operated a
Company, which
press
and such action forms the basis of the first
trucking
Detroit
business between
motor
contention of error.
was not
stockholder
offi
He
Chicago.
corporation, but,
opinion
under the title of
motion-
We are of
cer
secretary,
power
sign
he had
suppress did not come too late. The de
assistant
employ additional trucks to handle
checks,
resided Detroit. The
fendant
indictment
expense money,
with
Rapids,
drivers
furnish
returned at Grand
removal
freight,
was
rates,
waybills,
Ultimately,
fix
make out
the defendant was
resisted.
quote
was
to,
did, give
appear
and facilitate
required
direct
the movement
bond
generally'
May 8, 1929,
employed
specified
at a
term of court in the
freight. On
ance
West
Michigan.
upon
men,
Promptly
with
truck and
semi-
additional
ern
two
bond,
belonging
them,
the condition
complying
han
open trailer
raised,
leaving
evening
point
Detroit that
was
and to the
was
thereafter
a load
dle
5);A.
Goldberg
S., 297 F.
analogous
appearance
His
waived.
(C. C. A.
F. 528
an Schwartz v. U.
date,
appearance
arrest as of
S., 284 F.
Chiccov. U.
it was
newly returned, and
indictment but
*3
& Bros. Co.
compare also Guckenheimer
question.
raise the
then
too late to
Newingham v. U.
786,
S., F.(2d)
3
and
Ct. U.
305, 41 S.
S.,
298,
255
v.
U. S.
Gouled U.
3).
S., F.(2d)
(both
4
490
A.C.
255
C.
647;
S.,
U.
261,
Amos U.
65 L. Ed.
v.
313,
266, 65 L.
41 Ct.
Ed.
S.
S.
requiring
con
The
other
necessary
considering it
pass,
We
without
evi
of
relates to the admission
sideration
the truck
decide,
to
whether the search of
dence,
by
government,
the
tendered
the
constitutionally
legal, under
made and
was
following
epi
August 21st,
fact that
the
S., 267 U. S.
the doctrine of Carroll v. U.
discussed,
May
9th,
sode
8th and
above
280,
543, 39 A. R.
132, 45 Ct.
69 L. Ed.
L.
S.
prohibition
agents
federal
went
enforcement
790;
illegal,
upon the absence
or
as based
Chicago-
to the warehouse
dock of the
believing
grounds
a crime
of reasonable
Express Company, and there discov
Detroit
being committed,
the
was
doctrine
intoxicating liquor,
large quantities of
ered
310, 48
S., 275
S. Ct.
Gambino v. U.
U. S.
whisky
2,064
and 300
viz.,
pints
some
137,
L. R. 1381. The
72
Ed.
A.
L.
quarts
champagne.
that
It is contended
ship
weight
shipment, as a
excessive
this
that,
evidence violates the
“on a
rule
drugs,
appearance
burlap
ment
the
prosecution
particular crime,
for a
evidence
through
boxes,
trans
the
its
cracks
any
which in
manner
or tends
show
shows
portation
highway
the
over a main
between
that
accused
the
committed another
has
boundary
Chicago in the
international
wholly independent
crime
of that for whieh
professed ignorance
night,
dead of
the
trial,
though
he is
even
it is
crime of
a
except as
drivers of the contents of the load
sort,
the same
irrelevant and inadmissible”
they
by
shown
waybills,
the
which
surren
any
(16
586),
C. J.
not fall
does
within
any
dered, and
protest
lack of
evidence of
recognized
exceptions
the
rule.
to the
to examination,
all tend to
the claim
charging
jury,
the
court
the
below
legality.
hand,
On the other
the reason
specifically
jurors
the
instructed
that
shipment by night
ableness of
to avoid ob
was
evidence
not admitted and should not
by
traffic,
struction
that
the
the fact
by
tending
be considered
showing,
them as
or
load
covered,
was
lack of identification of
show, propensity
part
re-
the
previous
either truck or drivers with
traffic
spondent
generally,
commit crimes
or
in liquor,
growing
burlap
use
the
aas
commit crimes of the same
that
sort as
lining
variety
for boxes in a
of businesses,
charged;
simply
that
it was admitted
facts,
and other
tend to refute the existence
given
weight
to be
such consideration and
grounds.
of reasonable
jury
receive,
as the
believed it was entitled to
may,
Be that as
clear,
think,
isit
we
determining
respond-
whether or not the
right
that no
of the defendant
violated.
was
ent,
date, knowingly engaged
at the earlier
he,
corporation by
Neither
nor the
transportation
in the unlawful
of intoxicat-
was employed, owned the
or its con
truck
ing liquors
aiding, abetting,
partici-
tents.
It is true
the truck and
that
its drivers
pating in the same.
employed
were
as the
instrumentalities
Ordinarily,
instigates,
he who
procures,
even, possibly,
independent contractors,
the
participates
guilty
a criminal act is
transportation
which the
was to be ac
principal.
332,
Section
Criminal
complished,
that
drivers and owners
Code
(18
550).
disputed
§
USCA
It
that
was
truck would be entitled to the consti
had made a rate for
may
shipment
Holt
protection,
tutional
one malefactor
but
truck, trailer,
hired the
right
question,
and drivers
escape
reason of
not claim
transportation,
waybills,
its
made
rights
out the
of an
that the constitutional
fact
expense money,
started
Agnello
S., advanced
violated.
other were
See
v. U.
journey. But,.
when con-
20, 35,
L.
the truck
46 S.
70
Ed.
269
U.
participation,
evidence of
409;
S.,
501 fronted with this
291 F.
51 A. R.
Remus v. U.
rate had been made
(C.
Holt
that
6);
S.,
MacDaniel v.
page 376 of N. Y.
Judgment affirmed.
WEST, respectfully shows I dissent. The record in the lan- was,
that the substantial guage charge: unusual “Whether the you such as to circumstances were convince beyond respondent a reasonable doubt that guilty of the fact packages whisky contained and beer and that *5 assisting transporta- he was the unlawful tion thereof.” Consequently trans- the evidence of the August 21, being
action of admissible knowledge the bare of defendant’s May preceding, have theory admitted on the tended to throw light upon intent, depend- motive or solely ing or lack of knowledge. And, proof if thought government intent, motive it should and no would have doubt been in- troduced chief instead of on rebuttal.
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO et al. v. RUBIN et al. No. 5721. Appeals,
Circuit Court of Fifth Circuit.
June Jr., Joseph Cobbs, Quin, K. D. T. City Atty., Antonio; Tex., all of
Ryan, San appellants. McMillan, Antonio, (J. Tex. R. J. of San Davis, Terrell, Hall, Edinburg, Tex. and Antonio, Tex., Hall, of San Millan Mc appellees. brief), BRYAN, Circuit Before WALKER DAWKINS, Judges,