HUMES
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1898-04-25
No. 150
170 U.S. 210 Supreme Court of the United States (1898) Caution
Also reported at: 42 L. Ed. 1011 · 18 S. Ct. 602 · 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1539 · SCDB 1897-115
Cited by 78 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A defendant convicted under the federal statute prohibiting agents and attorneys from wrongfully withholding pension payments challenged the trial court's jury instructions and claimed the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court provided sufficiently clear instructions explaining the two necessary elements of the offense—that the defendant was an agent or instrumental in the pension claim and that he wrongfully withheld money due to the pensioner—and that because proper evidence supported the jury's verdict, the Court could not overturn it based on the weight of the evidence.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McKenna,

Mr. Justice McKenna,

after stating the case, delivered the •opinion of the court.

Ve cannot regard as error the omission of the court to givé instructions which were not asked. In Isaacs v. United States, 159 U. S. 487, 491, Mr. Justice Brown said: “It is no ground for reversal that the court omitted to.give instructions, wheie they were not requested by the defendant. It is sufficient that the court gave no erroneous instructions. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 15; Texas and Pacific R’y Co. v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 78.” Nor are instruction's which-were given but not excepted to subject to review. Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 153.

We are confined, therefore, to the consideration of the second assignment of error. It is not well taken. As the court said in refusing it, the charge of the court was “ sufficiently full.” The court read to the jury section-5485 of the Revised Statutes, and stated that the indictment was predicated on "it. The statute provides that “any agent or attorney,, or any other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension or bounty land, who shall wrongfully withhold or wrongfully demand from a pensioner or claimant any portion of the pension or claim allowed, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor.”

And then, after explaining the indictment and stating -the rules of evidence, degrees of proof required,- thfe court said: “Now, with these general observations that are applicable and ‘ will be kept in mind by you throughout the case, we come to the testimony in the case, and in respect to that it appears from the statute, 'as' -you have ^observed, that. it -is necessary in order to make the case against the defendant (first) that he must' have,been the agent or attorney of the pensioner, or he must have been instrumental in the prosecution of the pension claim before he falls within the category of the persons who are subject to the provisions of the statute, and (secondly) he must withhold from the pensioner all of a part of what was due the pensioner claimant, so that two-propositions are necessary to be established: The defendant was an agent or instrumental in the prosecution of the claim, and, secondly, that he withheld from the pensioner money that belonged to the pensioner, some part of the pension that was allowed.”

The language of the court was explicit and unmistakable. It is fuller and more elaborate than the instruction requested.

The alleged fact that .the verdict was against the weight of evidence we are precluded from considering, if there was any evidence proper to go to the jury in support of the verdict. Crumpton v. United States, 138 U. S. 361; Moore v. United States, 150 U. S. 57, 61.

In this case there was certainly evidence proper to go to the jury-There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

  • Southern Railway-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1914)
  • Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1910)
    …the damáges allowed were excessive cannot be considered. Express Company v. Ware, 20 Wall. 543; New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company v. Winter’s Administrator, 143 U. S. 60, 75; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U. S. 436-438; Humes v. United States, 170 U. S. 210. Nor was any exception taken by the plaintiff in error to the instructions which the trial court gave to the jury. The only questions which are properly before us for review are as to certain rulings upon the admissibility of testimony. Error is a…
  • Kinard v. United States, 96 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
    …. 207, 222, 25 S.Ct. 429, 433, 49 L.Ed. 726. It is necessary, therefore, that the, judgment be reversed; and, consequently, we need not consider the other assignments of error. Reversed and remanded for new trial. See, also, Humes v. United States, 170 U.S. 210, 18 S.Ct. 602, 42 L.Ed. 1011; Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229; Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 843; Harris v. United States, 59 App.D.C. 353, 41 F. 2d 976; Carroll v. United States, 8 Ci…

Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw