Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

242 F.2d 508

Docket No. 16172.

Rewis v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 19, 1957.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1957-03-19

2 counsel of record

Relies on Rossi v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1957-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1971

9 federal appellate ·

40195719601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A. M. Crabtree, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants.

¶2E. Coleman Madsen, John L. Briggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5By a three-count indictment, appellants were charged with violations of Title 26 U.S.C.A., §§ 2810, 2834, 2833. From a conviction upon the third count of the indictment under § 2833 for carrying on the business of a distiller without having given bond as required by law, this appeal is taken.

¶6 The defendants were found by agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit at a still in Nassau County, Florida. It was not operating. The appellant Johnson was chopping wood and the appellant Rewis was about to begin using a soldering iron. Rewis stated that the still be*509longed to him and that Johnson “just came down there to help”. Nearby were grain and water in barrels which were not yet in the mash stage. Appellants took exception to the portion of the Court’s charge instructing the jury that they might be found guilty if they had commenced the business of distiller even though actual distillation had not been made. We think the instruction proper. It was contended that a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted because the still was not operating. We think the evidence was ample to sustain the conviction. Appellants contend that there should be no conviction absent affirmative proof that the appellants had not given bond as distillers as required by law. Such proof is not required as a part of the Government’s case. It will be presumed in situations such as there is here that no bond was given. Rossi v. United States, 289 U.S. 89, 53 S.Ct. 532, 77 L.Ed. 1051.

¶7The judgment of the district court is

¶8Affirmed.

/242/f2d/508 · .json · Public domain