Case ID: f2d_26/html/1015-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James AMENDOLA, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 21, 1928.
    No. 352.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    In error to a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York convicting a defendant under sections 1, 2, and 8 of the Harrison Act (26 USCA §§ 211, 696, 700- Comp. St. §§ 6287g, 6287h, 6287n).
    Thomas Cradock Hughes, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
    William A. De Groot, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
    Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This ease is a second trial on the indictment before us in Amendola v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 17 F.(2d) 529. The evidence was the same and the judge carefully left it to the jury to say where the sale took place. They must he understood to have held that Marinelli was Amendola’s agent. This was enough.

On confession of error the judgment is reversed on the first, second, and fourth counts. It is affirmed on the third.