Roy T. HARMAN

Male 1918 -


Personal Information    |    Sources    |    All    |    PDF

  • Name Roy T. HARMAN 
    Born ca 1918  Tazewell Co. VA Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Gender Male 
    Occupation Moonshiner 
    _UID 493EA58F8B5B4E5CBDF5720D3C67399DF5EC 
    Notes 
    • Worked with his father. Spent time in jail for illegal alcohol manufacturing. Migrated to MI, worked for automobile car makers.

      CENSUS RECORDS

      1920 United States Federal Census
      Name: Roy T Harman
      Age: 1 year 6 months
      Birth Year: abt 1919
      Birthplace: Virginia
      Home in 1920: Big Creek, McDowell, West Virginia
      Race: White
      Gender: Male
      Relation to Head of House: Son
      Marital Status: Single
      Father's Name: French Harman
      Father's Birthplace: Virginia
      Mother's Name: Nora L Harman
      Mother's Birthplace: Virginia

      1940 United States Federal Census
      Name: Roy Harman
      Age: 21
      Estimated Birth Year: abt 1919
      Gender: Male
      Race: White
      Birthplace: Virginia
      Marital Status: Single
      Home in 1940: Charleston, Kanawha, West Virginia
      Inferred Residence in 1935: Rural, McDowell, West Virginia
      Residence in 1935: Rural, McDowell, West Virginia
      Institution: Kanawha County Jail
      Education: High School, 1 year [1]

    • HARMAN,
      v.
      UNITED STATES
      United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
      Argued June 20, 1952
      Decided Sept. 25, 1952

      J. Raymond Gordon, Charleston, W.Va., for appellant.

      Philip A. Baer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Huntington, W.Va. (A. Garnett Thompson, U.S. Atty., Charleston, W.Va., on brief), for appellee.

      Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and PAUL, District judge.

      PARKER, Chief Judge

      This is an appeal in a proceeding instituted under 26 U.S.C. 2831, 3116 and 3321, for the forfeiture of an automobile truck which it was alleged had been used to convey materials and necessary equipment to an illicit distillery by one Roy Harman. Lucille Harman filed an intervening petition claiming that she was the owner of the truck and that she had no knowledge that it was being used in violation of the internal revenue laws. A jury trial was had, and in response to issues submitted to them the jury found that the truck was used by Roy Harman to haul materials for use in making moonshine whiskey and that Lucille Harman knew or had reason to believe that it was being used for that purpose. Judgment of forfeiture was entered on this verdict and Lucille Harman has appealed

      A large moonshine still was discovered by officers near the home of Beverly French Harman in McDowell County, West Virginia, so situated that it could not well have been operated without the use of a truck for the purpose of conveying materials and utensils to a nearby point. Roy Harman was the son of Beverly French Harman and the brother of Newton Harman and Gratin Harman who were definitely shown to have been engaged with David Robert Stevenson in operating the still. There was evidence that Roy Harman was closely associated with Newton Harman, that he made frequent visits to the Beverly French Harman home and that he used a truck to haul sugar, middlings, grain, yeast and other supplies to a point near the distillery. No one connected with the distillery except Roy Harman had the use of a car or truck. The truck in question was bought and paid for by him and he operated it. Although the title was placed in the name of Lucille Harman, a girl whom he was engaged to be married, she paid nothing towards purchasing it and had nothing to do with its operation, except that she frequently rode around in it with him. This evidence was clearly sufficient to take the case to the jury.

      Equally lacking in merit is the contention with respect to the examination and testimony of the witness Stevenson. This witness had given a statement to government counsel to the effect that Roy Harman had hauled sugar, middlings, yeast and jugs on a Ford pick up truck to a point about 200 yards above the Harman house in the direction of the distillery. When called to the stand by the prosecution he gave testimony in conflict with this statement, whereupon counsel for the prosecution asked leave to cross examine him as a hostile witness. This was allowed and the witness admitted giving the statement and testified that it was the truth.

      There is nothing in the contention that the court erred in allowing the jury to consider the statement as evidence in the case instead of limiting it to impeachment of the testimony of the witness. When the witness testified that the statement was true it became a part of his testimony, and not mere matter of impeachment, and was to be weighed by the jury along with the other testimony he had given.

      The third question is whether the proceeding for condemnation must fail because the truck was taken into possession for the purpose of the proceeding, not from Roy Harman or the claimant, but from state officers who had seized and searched it when arresting Roy Harman without a warrant. No question is presented with respect to the admissibility of evidence obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure, for no such evidence was offered. Forfeiture is asked not on account of what was found at the time of seizure but of what had occurred prior thereto; and vehicles may be forfeited for violations of law occurring prior to seizure as well as when they are seized flagrante delicto.

      The fact that the state officers may have had no authority to seize the truck when arresting Harman is immaterial, for they yielded possession to the federal authorities for the purposes of this proceeding; and it is well settled that 'where property declared by a federal statute to be forfeited, because used in violation of federal law, is seized by one having no authority to do so, the United States may adopt the seizure with the same effect as if it had originally been made by one duly authorized.

      We can see no reason for doubting the soundness of these principles when the forfeiture is dependent upon subsequent events any more than when it occurs at the time of the seizure, although it was argued that there was a difference. They seem to us to embody good sense. The exclusion of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure stand on a different ground.
    Person ID I31  Master File
    Last Modified 31 Aug 2012 

    Father Beverly French HARMAN,   b. 10 Nov 1883, Tazewell Co. VA Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 19 Apr 1955, War, McDowell Co. WV Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 71 years) 
    Mother Nora Louise WHITAKER,   b. 18 Mar 1874, Tazewell Co. VA Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 13 Feb 1971, Trenton, Wayne Co. MI Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 96 years) 
    Family ID F13  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

    Family Lucille Harmon,   b. ca 1929, Warriormine, McDowell Co. WV Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Married 02 Sep 1953  Welch, McDowell Co. WV Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Last Modified 31 Aug 2012 
    Family ID F8316  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  • Sources 
    1. [S1] Interview with Rosa Mae Whitaker Shepherd, June 11, 1999, Cheryl Tate Duke.