OVERTON v. OKLAHOMA(1914)
Messrs. Charles B. Stuart and A. C. Cruce for plaintiff in error. [235 U.S. 31, 32] Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:
The verdict and sentence were on an indictment for illegally moving liquor ( 4180, Snyder's Compiled Laws of Oklahoma). The defense was that the movement was to complete an interstate shipment, from Missouri. The court instructed that the statute did not apply to such a shipment, and hence, if the movement was as asserted, there must be an acquittal. Under this situation the contention here made that the statute was repugnant to the commerce clause is too frivolous to support jurisdiction. And this is also true of the contention that there is jurisdiction because the facts establish that the conclusion of guilt could only have been reached by plainly disregarding the proof as to the character of the shipment, thus in fact applying the statute to interstate commerce,1 since the record affords no justification for the assumption upon which the proposition rests.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
[ Footnote 1 ] Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co. 223 U.S. 573, 591 , 56 S. L. ed. 556, 565, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 316; Creswill v. Grand Lodge, K. P. 225 U.S. 246, 261 , 56 S. L. ed. 1074, 1080, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 822; Southern P. Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U.S. 601, 611 , 57 S. L. ed. 662, 669, 43 L.R.A.(N.S.) 901, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Portland R. Light & P. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 229 U.S. 397, 411 , 412 S., 57 L. ed. 1248, 1258, 1259, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236, 243 , 244 S., 58 L. ed. 584, 590, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 309; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. West, 232 U. 682, 691, 692, 58 L. ed. 795, 801, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 471.