Eddington v. United States

• Decision Date: 25 January 1928
• Docket Number: No. 7609.,7609.
• Citation: 24 F.2d 50
• Parties: EDDINGTON v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

24 F.2d 50 (1928)

EDDINGTON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7609.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 25, 1928.

John T. Harley, of Tulsa, Okl. (Wash E. Hudson, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

John M. Goldesberry, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl.

Before STONE, Circuit Judge, and REEVES and OTIS, District Judges.

REEVES, District Judge.

Indicted for conspiracy to defraud the government, plaintiff in error, with others, was convicted.

The indictment charged that the plaintiff in error, with Walter Chitwood, R. D. Emerson, Chester Truelove, Harry White, and Harry Sherrill, on or about the 13th day of August, A. D. 1925, "with the intent to defraud the United States of America," confederated and agreed to execute or cause to be executed and to deliver to a United States commissioner within the Northern district of Oklahoma "certain worthless and fraudulent appearance or bail bonds, for the purpose of procuring the release of certain persons who were then and there charged with the violation of the laws of the United States of America," and "that, while said conspiracy * * * was in full force and effect * * * and in pursuance thereof," committed certain overt acts set out in the indictment.

One of the overt acts charged was the execution and delivery of a bond by the defendant Sherrill, who was being held to answer a pending charge. The defendants Truelove and Emerson were his sureties, and scheduled properties which they did not own.

The evidence, on the part of the government, tended to show that the property listed in the schedules by Truelove had been acquired by plaintiff in error on the 7th day of August, 1925, by deed which was left blank as to the grantee. This was six days before the execution of the Sherrill bond. Plaintiff in error caused the name of Truelove to be inserted in the deed for his convenience. A few days thereafter he disposed of said property by deed signed by Truelove. The property listed by the defendant Emerson did not stand in his name. Plaintiff in error held a purported deed of conveyance, dated July 30, 1925.

Plaintiff in error denied the conspiracy. He explained that deeds to property acquired by him were left blank as to the grantee because his wife was in the state of Missouri, and that by so doing he would not have to send the deeds there for her signature. He said he had traded the property to Truelove, but shortly afterwards obtained it again for the purpose of consummating a deal with another party.

Plaintiff in error did not deny categorically that he had told one of the witnesses for the government that he had had said property put in Truelove's name for convenience. He simply said he did not remember. He testified, in substance, that he met Truelove by chance, and a trade was made, and then quite as casually met another party who was in the market for the same property. Thereupon he got it back from Truelove to make another deal. In the meantime Truelove scheduled the property without his knowledge. Plaintiff in error said he did know Emerson, but that he held a deed to the property scheduled by Emerson.

In proving title to the property, covered by the schedules of Emerson and Truelove, the government used the deed records of the counties where such properties were situated. The evidence of overt acts was proffered by the government in connection with other evidence in the case.

In the charge of the court, the following comment appears:

"It is the theory of the government in this case that these defendants Chitwood, Truelove, Emerson, Eddington, and White, entered into a conspiracy to obtain the release of this man Harry Sherrill, who was in custody of the United States marshal, charged with certain offenses against the Harrison Narcotic Law; that this particular bail bond involved in this case was a spurious, as we might term it, or worthless, bond."

After detailing the circumstances under which the property acquired by plaintiff in error was transferred to Truelove and then back to plaintiff in error, the court said:

"As I said to you, gentlemen, my opinion about the evidence is not in any way binding on you, but I do not give any credence to this testimony about this trade. It doesn't appeal to me as a reasonable transaction, or as a bona fide transaction at all. It doesn't appeal to me that men do business that way; that is, honest business.

"Now, this man Holbert who traded for this Sperry property from Mr. Eddington, he said he made the trade with him, and Mr. Eddington told him at the time he made the trade that he had had the Sperry property put in Truelove's name as a matter of convenience and form. I think that is true, the convenience of getting this man Truelove to sign this spurious, worthless bond. * * * Now, gentlemen, I don't know, that may strike you entirely different; that Truelove deal may sound all right. It may be; we cannot sometimes read the motives that actuate men, but it doesn't appeal to me at all as being a bona fide transaction."

Plaintiff in error complains in this court (a) that the trial court erred in overruling a demurrer to the evidence tendered at the close of the government's case and again at the close of all the evidence; (b) that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of overt acts of certain of the defendants without first requiring the government to show prima facie evidence of a conspiracy; (c) that it was error for the trial court to admit in evidence the recorded copies of certain instruments of conveyance without first requiring proof that the original instruments were not available; and (d) that the trial court made...