U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1946

Warde v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 16, 1946

158 F.2d 651; 81 U.S. App. D.C. 355 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Richard L. Merrick, of Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellants., Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Hall (Mont. 1988)
Zeigler v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Pendleton v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Eugene L. Crow v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison (9th Cir. 1972)
Clyde H. Hale, Jr. v. United States (10th Cir. 1969)
Eddie M. Harrison v. United States of America, Orson G. White v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Jim B. Edmonds v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
United States v. Grunewald (District Court, S.D. New York 1958)
Plummer v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1951)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted of keeping gaming tables. D.C.Code 1940, § 22— 1504. There are conflicts in the testimony, but the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. The tenant of the premises was an incorporated club but there was evidence that appellants took part in carrying on its gambling activities. They were therefore responsible as principals. D.C.Code 1940, § 22 — 105. There was evidence of gambling on more than one occasion. Moreover, one occasion was enough. Nelson v. United States, 28 App.D.C. 32, 37. Testimony of appellant Walling at a previous trial, together with a bank statement to which it related, were rightly admitted since this testimony had some tendency to establish his guilt. Milton v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 394, 110 F.2d 556. Appellants’ other contentions are also without merit.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.