Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 F.2d 1021

Docket No. 4134.

Haughran v. United States

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 17, 1924.)

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1924-11-17

1 counsel of record

Relies on Roth v. United States · Bullock v. United States

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1924-11-17

¶1In Error to the District Court of the United Slates for the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Ohio; John E. Sater, Judge.

¶2C. C. Middleswart, of Marietta, Ohio (Edw. B. Follett, of Marietta, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error. Benson W. Hough, Dana F. Reynolds, and W. B. Bartels, all of Columbus, Ohio, for defendant in error.

¶3Before DONAHUE, MAOK. and KNAPPJBN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5It appears from the record and briefs in this case and the statement of counsel in open court that the sole contention of plaintiffs in error is that the verdict of the jury is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. This court has no authority to consider and determine the weight of the evidence. R. S. § 1011 (Comp. Stat. § 1672); Roth v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 475; Bullock v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 289 F. 29, 32. Judgment affirmed.

/1/f2d/1021 · .json · Public domain