Beck v. United States, 5930.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 5930.,5930. |
| Citation | 62 App. DC 223,66 F.2d 203 |
| Parties | BECK v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Al. Philip Kane and Maurice McInerney, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leo A. Rover and Irvin Goldstein, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
Appellant appeals from a verdict and judgment convicting him of the crime of grand larceny.
It appears that on October 3, 1932, appellant, in company with a man named Kent, registered at a hotel in Washington. The following day he rented a room at 2016 Connecticut avenue, giving the name of Albert L. Bailey. On October 4, answering an advertisement in a local paper, he went to Miss Hazel Collison to purchase her automobile, and the next day agreed to purchase it for $300 cash on delivery, the delivery to be made the following day at the Connecticut avenue address. Promptly, as agreed, on the following day, Miss Collison took the automobile to the Connecticut avenue address, where she was informed by appellant that he was unable to pay for it in cash, but would have to procure a loan on it and from the proceeds of the loan pay her. He represented to Miss Collison that for the purpose of procuring the loan he would need the title certificate and registration card. She offered to go to the finance company with him, but he objected, assuring her that it would be better for him to go alone, whereupon they went to a notary public, and Miss Collison made an assignment in blank of her title to the automobile on the title certificate and gave it to appellant for his use in procuring the loan.
Appellant then suggested that it would take two days to negotiate the loan, and requested that he be permitted to use the automobile during that time. When she hesitated to grant this request, he offered her his note to indemnify her for anything that might happen to the car while in his possession and before the negotiations for the loan were completed. Appellant's note for $300 due two days after date, was accepted by Miss Collison, and appellant took the automobile to Philadelphia, Pa., where he procured a Pennsylvania certificate of title on October 7th and turned the automobile over to Kent, who sold it the next day to one Barron. The automobile was located in Barron's possession and identified by number, but before Miss Collison arrived in Philadelphia Barron sold it and refused to disclose the identity of the purchaser.
The case turns upon the single contention of counsel for appellant that the transaction amounted to a sale in which Miss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Daigle, Crim. No. 1122-56.
...597. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal will be denied. 1 Beck v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 223, 224, 66 F.2d 203. 2 Cooper v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 325, 30 F.2d 567, 3 Heath v. United States, 9 Cir., 209 F. 2d 318, cited by the ......
-
Loney v. United States
...considered.7 The judgment is affirmed. 1 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 35-45. 2 United States v. Patton, 3 Cir., 120 F.2d 73, 75. 3 Beck v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 223, 66 F.2d 203, 204; John v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 11, 79 F.2d 136, 137; Bimbo v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 246, 82 F.2d 852, 855; ......
-
Graham v. United States, 10666.
...Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 119, 65 F.2d 206, 207. See also Talbert v. United States, 42 App.D.C. 1, 16; Beck v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 223, 66 F.2d 203; John v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 11, 12-13, 79 F.2d 136, 137-138; Bimbo v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 246, 249, 82 F.2......
-
Stewart v. United States, 13045.
...Dobbins, 152 Iowa 632, 132 N.W. 805, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 735; State v. Edwards, 51 W.Va. 220, 41 S.E. 429, 59 L.R.A. 465; Beck v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 223, 66 F.2d 203; Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206; Tredwell v. United States, 4 Cir., 266 F. 350; Talbert v. United S......