Hays v. United States

• Citation: 231 F. 106
• Decision Date: 26 January 1916
• Docket Number: 4419.
• Parties: HAYS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

231 F. 106

HAYS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4419.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 26, 1916

Harry O. Glasser, of Enid, Okl., for plaintiff in error.

Isaac D. Taylor, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Guthrie, Okl. (John A. Fain U.S. Atty., of Lawton, Okl., and W. B. Herod, Asst. U.S Atty., of Guthrie, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and AMIDON and VAN VALKENBURGH District Judges.

AMIDON District Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Hays, was jointly indicted with one Lessie Jones, for violating the White Slave Traffic Act. The indictment contained two counts. The first charges the furnishing of transportation to a 17 year old girl to make a journey from Oklahoma City, Okl., to Wichita, Kan., for the purpose of illicit sexual relations with Hays. The second charges the persuading, inducing, and enticing of the girl to make the same journey for the same purpose. The defendants were convicted upon both counts. Hays alone brings error.

Lessie Jones is a mature woman and a confirmed prostitute. She and the girl in question were living together at the Regal Hotel in Oklahoma City, leading an illicit life. Miller, a business associate of Hays, was a 'friend' of Lessie Jones, and had been visiting the hotel for two or three days in the early part of March, 1914. He stated to the girl that he had a friend whom he would like to have her meet. On Sunday Mr. Hays called at the hotel, and Miller introduced him to the girl. At this meeting it was proposed that the defendant Jones and the girl should come to Wichita, where Miller and Hays resided, the men to pay the expense of the journey, and to support the women, in consideration of illicit sexual life. The girl at first declined, but was finally persuaded to go. The men returned to Wichita, and a day or two later were followed by Lessie Jones, who promised the girl that she would get money from Hays to pay the expense of her coming. A few days thereafter she called the girl up on the long-distance phone, and stated that Hays refused to send her money, but was willing to supply her with a ticket, and directed her to call for it at the Santa Fe office, and come on a certain train. A telegram was also sent by Lessie Jones to the girl, as follows: 'Go to Santa Fe for ticket. Come on seven-twenty sure. ' The ticket was paid for by Lessie Jones at the Santa Fe office in Wichita. The agent there wired the agent at Oklahoma City to furnish the girl, giving her name, the ticket. The girl, acting upon the telegraph and telephone messages, called at the Santa Fe office, received and receipted for the ticket, and traveled upon it to Wichita. All this documentary evidence from the railroad, telegraph, and telephone offices was introduced at the trial in support of the oral testimony. At Wichita Hays and Miller were waiting in the Santa Fe Station when the girl arrived. They kept a little in the background. Lessie Jones was also there, and met the girl, and took her to a restaurant for supper. She then conducted her to a hotel, where two rooms had been engaged previously. There they found Hays and Miller awaiting them. Hays occupied one room with the girl, and Miller the other with the defendant Jones. The next morning it was arranged between the four that the women should either engage a house or other rooms during the day, and that all four should meet at the post office at 6 o'clock in the evening, where the women were to notify the men of the location of the quarters selected. Rooms were engaged at a rooming house. The girl registered herself and Hays under the name of Mr. and Mrs. O. C. Russell, Kansas City. The defendant Jones registered herself and Miller under the name of Mr. Miller and wife, Kansas City. At 6 o'clock the women went to the post office, and were soon met by the two men. The four took a short ride in an automobile, and then separated, the women going to their rooms. Later in the evening the two men came to the rooms for the night, Hays occupying one room with the girl, and Miller the other with the defendant Jones. During the next 10 days the parties spent four or five nights together in the same rooms. The men then stated that their wives were getting 'wise,' and that they could not come to the rooms any more. Evidence of the keeper of the rooming house and of the hotel was also introduced in corroboration of the testimony of the girl, who was the chief witness on behalf of the government. During the period of their illicit relations Hays paid the girl $2 on two different occasions, and $1 on another. The bills for the rooms were paid by the defendant Jones.

The only evidence that Hays paid for the ticket upon which the girl rode was the testimony of the girl as to the original agreement made at the Regal Hotel, and her statement as to the declarations of defendant Jones, in the conversation over the long-distance phone, that Hays furnished the money for the ticket. So far as there was direct evidence on the subject, the money was actually paid to the Santa Fe agent at Wichita, by the defendant Jones, and she carried on the communications with the girl which resulted in her making the trip to Wichita. The only other evidence on the subject is the illicit life of Hays with the girl which is so clearly established as not to be controverted in the argument in this court. No evidence was introduced by the defendants.

At the conclusion of plaintiff's case a motion was made for a directed verdict, and its denial is one of the principal errors now relied on. While it is conceded that there is substantial evidence to establish all the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment, it is urged that such evidence is insufficient to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This assignment of error is without merit. Where there is substantial evidence tending to prove each element of the offense charged, the verdict of the jury is final. Whether the evidence is of sufficient probative force to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt is addressed solely to the judgment of the jury. The court can do no more than accurately state the rule of law. There is no way by which the doctrines of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence can be properly used to create a new zone of error or devolve upon appellate courts the duty to examine evidence and determine its probative force. Matthews v. United States, 192 F. 490, 113 C.C.A. 96; Stout v. United States, 227 F. 799, . . . C.C.A. . . .; Humes v. United States, 170 U.S. 210; ^[1] Burton v. United States, 202 U.S....