United States v. Dale
| Decision Date | 17 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 5676. |
| Citation | 230 F. 750 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DALE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
P. L Benjamin, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
Defendants have been indicted for using the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. The scheme averred was that defendants should, under the name of the Universal Company, pretend and represent to one Daniel N. Schneider that his father, lately deceased, had ordered from them, C.O.D., a pair of spectacles which were worth $10, to be delivered to him by Wells Fargo & Co., and would represent to said Schneider that these spectacles were to be paid for upon delivery, and that his deceased father had become obligated to pay therefor the sum of $10 and would thus procure the said spectacles to be delivered to said Schneider, as a true consignment made by agreement with and to be sent to his said deceased father and thus induce him to pay to said Wells Fargo & Co. the sum of $10, which said sum should be by said Wells Fargo & Co. delivered to defendants; that said representations were all false, and the said spectacles were worth not more than $1 that in furtherance of said scheme defendants placed and caused to be placed in the post office, to be sent and delivered, and caused to be delivered according to the directions thereon, an envelope addressed to 'The Universal Company, Care Wells Fargo & Co., San Francisco, Cal.,' which envelope contained a Wells Fargo & Co.'s check for $10 payable to the order of the Universal Co., San Francisco, 'account of C.O.D. shipped 3-16-1915, to J. J. Schneider.'
It is evident from the scheme as alleged that its culmination would consist in inducing Schneider 'to pay to Wells Fargo & Co. the sum of $10, which said sum should be by said Wells Fargo & Co. delivered to defendants. ' It is not averred that it was intended that said sum should be sent to defendants by mail, so that from the indictment we may gather that Schneider paid to Wells Fargo & Co. the sum of $10, that Wells Fargo & Co. delivered this sum to defendants, and that they procured a check for that amount and mailed it to themselves at San Francisco, under the name of the Universal Company. If this be the meaning of the indictment, the mailing was in no way in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, although so averred, as the scheme had already been consummated. If this is not the meaning, but it is meant that Wells...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McKay
...10 Cir., 106 F.2d 286; McNear v. United States, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 861; McLendon v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 660; United States v. Dale, D.C., 230 F. 750; United States v. Leche, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 982, 986; United States v. Siebricht, 2 Cir., 59 F.2d 976; Mitchell v. United States, 10 Cir......
-
Stewart v. United States
... ... there are authorities that tend to sustain and possibly do ... sustain such an interpretation of alleged schemes to defraud ... and their execution as counsel for the defendants contend ... should prevail in this case (Ex parte Black (D.C.) 147 F ... 832, 839, 840; United States v. Dale (D.C.) 230 F ... 750). But upon consideration our opinion is that the ... statement that the alleged fraudulent scheme in this case was ... completely executed and consummated in any case when the deed ... was delivered, the cash paid, and the notes and trust deed ... were executed and ... ...
-
United States v. McKay
...10 Cir., 106 F.2d 286; McNear v. United States, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 861; McLendon v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 660; United States v. Dale, D.C., 230 F. 750; United States v. Leche, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 982, 986; United States v. Siebricht, 2 Cir., 59 F.2d 976; Mitchell v. United States, 10 Cir......
-
United States v. Leche, Cr. No. 9430.
...Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 681. It seems to me that the case nearest in point cited by defendants, is that of United States v. Dale, D.C., 230 F. 750. The portion of the opinion quoted shows that the scheme was to represent to the victim that his father, before death, had order......