Belt v. United States, 7342.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 7342.,7342. |
| Parties | BELT et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
E. T. Miller and J. S. Belt, both of Amarillo, Tex., for appellants.
Clyde O. Eastus, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex.
Before BRYAN, HUTCHESON, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Belt and Kelly were indicted and convicted of using the mails for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in violation of 18 USCA ß 338. The scheme alleged in the indictment was to induce divers persons throughout the United States to subscribe and pay for shares or units at $10 each in an association to be formed with a capital of $2,000,000 for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing helium gas and solid carbon dioxide or dry ice. Among the representations alleged to be false and fraudulent were that manufacturing plants would be built and paid for out of the funds raised by the sale of shares or units which would produce daily 50,000 tons of helium gas and 600 tons of dry ice, and that these manufactured products could be sold at an enormous profit to those taking shares in the enterprise. The indictment was in seven counts. The scheme and the means of carrying it out were set out in detail in the first count and adopted by reference in all the others; the only material difference between the counts being that a different letter, alleged to have been mailed to persons to be defrauded, was set out in each. An attorney, acting under an appointment in writing signed by the Attorney General, which authorized him to appear before the grand jury and to assist in the trial of this particular case, was present in the grand jury room while the grand jury was considering whether it would return a true bill. Prior to his appearance before the grand jury, he took the oath required of a special assistant to the Attorney General, but failed to file that oath or appointment with the clerk of the district court.
The evidence was such as to authorize the jury to find that Belt and Kelly were acting in concert; that they entered into an arrangement whereby Kelly was to solicit the sales of the shares or units, and the money realized therefrom, instead of being used to build plants or to manufacture helium gas or dry ice, was to be divided in the proportions of 65 per cent. to Belt and the balance to Kelly, and appropriated to their own use; that they made the representations alleged in the indictment, and did so, not in good faith, but fraudulently and with knowledge that those representations were false. It was quite conclusively established that Kelly signed and caused several of the indictment letters to be mailed at Amarillo, Tex., as alleged. Under his direction they were prepared for mailing by his office assistant, and, with the postmark of the Amarillo post...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Persico, In re
...382 U.S. 44, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 L.Ed.2d 36 (1965). The commission when signed need not be filed with the court. Belt v. United States, 73 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1934). Three Circuits have implied that any challenge by defendants to commission letters as overbroad may be inappropriate While b......
-
U.S. v. Siegelman, 07-13163.
...the acts of [Scrushy] in furtherance of the common criminal enterprise were in law the acts of [Siegelman] also." See Belt v. United States, 73 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir.1934). Just as in Ward, where the defendant denied knowledge of both the mailing and the circumstances prompting it, Siegelm......
-
U.S. v. Ward
...purpose of executing it or attempting to do so, knowingly caused the alleged use of the mails." Id. at 685. Again in Belt v. United States, 73 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1934), a panel of the former Fifth Circuit It may be assumed that Belt did not sign or cause to be mailed any of the letters set ......
-
United States v. 1,960 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...because the Special Assistant took his oath in Washington instead of the district where the prosecution occurred. In Belt v. United States, 5 Cir., 1934, 73 F.2d 888, the Court held that the indictment was not void because the Special Assistant had failed to file his appointment of record, ......