Fulkerson

Fulkerson v. United States

Good Law
2 F.2d 667·1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2141
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 24, 1924No. 4812California5,276 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

Fulkerson, defendant below, was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, sale of some of such liquor, and maintenance of a common nuisance. To review the judgment he brought writ of error.

The substance of testimony in bobalf of the government was that prohibition agents went to a certain apartment in an apartment house in Seattle, and were invited .into a room by a woman named Miller; that one of the agents asked for whisky, and the other for gin; that the woman returned with a flask of whisky in the pocket of her dross, and delivered some gin to one of the agents; that she told them that the price of the bottle was $5; that, upon an offer of $5 for the two drinks and what was left in the bottle, she said she would see, and went outside; that in a few minutes defendant Fulkerson came in and said, “It is all right for the five,” and passed the bottle to one of the men, and Fulkerson took the $5 in payment; that Fulkerson was then placed under arrest, and upon service of a search warrant a quantity of liquor was found in the kitchen and other parts of the apartment.

The defendant testified that he was a policeman in Seattle; that he rented a room in the apartment…

Dissenting Opinion

Ross, J.

I respectfully dissent. The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crimes of having unlawful possession of certain described intoxicating liquor, of unlawfully selling some of such liquor, and of having unlawfully conducted and maintained a common nuisance by keeping and selling such liquors, all in connection with two women named, respectively, Luella Nulph and Ruth Miller, and all within the jurisdiction of the trial court, contrary to the provisions of the National Prohibition Act.

The bill of exceptions shows that testimony was given on the part of the government tending to prove the alleged offenses by the plaintiff in error in connection with the two women referred to, in apartment F in the Metropolitan Apartments in the city of Seattle. I stale, in substance, a little of the testimony of the witness Justi, who testified that he is a prohibition agent; that he visited apartment F of the Metropolitan Apartments with Agent O’Hara; that the door was opened by Ruth Miller, who invited them into the room; that he then inquired if she had any drinks of liquor, and she said “Yes,” and he told her he would like some Scotch whisky, and O’Hara said he would like some gin; that she…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.