Ayres v. United States, 13590.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1952
• Docket Number: No. 13590.,13590.
• Citation: Ayres v. United States, 193 F.2d 739 (5th Cir. 1952)
• Parties: AYRES v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

193 F.2d 739 (1952)

AYRES v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13590.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 31, 1952.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1952.

Charles H. Sherman, Jr., Houston, Tex., for appellant.

William R. Eckhardt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brian S. Odem, U. S. Atty., and John C. Snodgrass, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before HOLMES, BORAH, and STRUM, Circuit Judges.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment convicting appellant, James H. Ayres, of knowingly making a false, forged and counterfeited letter and notary attestation to a Selective Service Board in support of a request for a III-A classification for his brother-in-law, Theodore Kipperman, in violation of section 462, Title 50, Appendix, U.S.C.A. Appellant here contends that the trial court erred (1) in not granting his motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the government's case, (2) in refusing to hear evidence as to the voluntariness or involuntariness of an inculpatory statement, and (3) in the admission of certain evidence.

There is an abundance of evidence which points unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. Mrs. Charlotte Hurd, clerk of Local Board 58, Selective Service System, testified that Theodore Kipperman was a registrant of Local Board No. 58, Houston, Texas; that she had advised him that it would be necessary for him to submit notarized statements in support of his claim for a deferred III-A classification; and that following this conversation appellant and Theodore Kipperman visited the local draft board office and delivered to her a letter purportedly signed by Mrs. O. W. Tidwell and attested to by the appellant as a notary public. So far as here material, the letter stated that Mrs. Tidwell had been acquainted with Theodore Kipperman and his mother for approximately five years and during this period, to the best of her knowledge, he had been the sole support of his mother. Mrs. Tidwell, a witness for the government, testified that she did not write the letter, did not sign it and did not authorize anyone to sign it for her. She swore that she had known Kipperman and his mother for only a short period of time and had no knowledge as to whether he had been the sole support of his mother during the five year period set forth in the letter. She also testified that after the Federal Bureau of Investigation commenced making inquiries concerning the letter appellant asked her to refrain from disclosing that she had not signed it and admitted to her that he had written the letter and signed her name to it. There was also evidence to show that in a prior habeas corpus proceeding, which was filed by Kipperman to test the legality of his induction, appellant admitted under oath that he signed Mrs. Tidwell's name to the letter in question. With this competent and substantial evidence before the jury, fairly tending to sustain if not to compel the verdict, the trial court was clearly right in refusing to...