Byron v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 June 1921
• Docket Number: 3606.
• Citation: 273 F. 769
• Parties: BYRON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

273 F. 769

BYRON et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3606.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 6, 1921

Rehearing Denied August 1, 1921.

P. V Davis and S. H. Piles, both of Seattle, Wash., and C. A Keigwin, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs in error.

Robert C. Saunders, U.S. Atty., and Francis C. Reagan, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.

Plaintiffs in error Byron and Comyns were convicted under 46 counts of an indictment, 45 charging violation of section 215 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10385) and 1 count charging conspiracy to violate that section (section 37 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10201)). Writ of error was sued out.

The scheme alleged pertained to lands in Washington and was as follows:

Certain lands forming part of the public domain had been withdrawn from entry and application to purchase under the Timber and Stone Act and were put within the limits of the Olympic National Forest by presidential proclamation; certain lands had been selected by the state as school indemnity selection, which selections had been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, who was without authority to convey such land; certain other lands were included in lieu selections made under the act of Congress approved June 4, 1897 (the Forest Lieu Land Act (30 Stat. 36)), which said selections were pending before the Department of the Interior, and while so pending were not subject to application or entry under the Timber and Stone Act; certain other lands were embraced within school indemnity selections of the state, which had been allowed by the register and receiver and were pending before the Department of the Interior, and while such selections were so pending no rights to the lands could be acquired by application to purchase under the timber and stone laws.

It is alleged that the defendants falsely pretended to certain 'victims' that preference rights and patents to said lands could be secured by means of applications to enter presented through defendants, and defendants promised that upon payment of certain sums to them title to said lands could be obtained through the Department of the Interior within periods of time varying from a few months to two years, and that in the event of failure to obtain titles defendants would repay to the victims the money they had paid; whereas defendants knew no rights or preferences could be secured through the Department of the Interior by virtue of such applications under the Timber and Stone Act, and defendants knew the victims would receive nothing of value for what they were induced to pay to defendants, and defendants had no intention of repaying any money, but it was a part of the scheme to induce the victim by false statements and representations upon which the victims relied, to part with their money by making them promises of repayment in the event title could not be secured. It is alleged that defendants also represented that it was not necessary that the victim should personally visit and inspect the land before making application, and that title could be secured for the nominal sum of $2.50 per acre and no more; whereas, defendants knew the lands, if subject at all to sale, would first be appraised by the Department of the Interior and sold at their appraised value, and not necessarily at the sum of $2.50 per acre, and knew that applications under the Timber and Stone Laws would not be allowed or recognized unless there had been a previous personal examination of the lands by the intending purchaser.

Further allegation is that the defendants falsely represented that while the applications would probably be rejected by the local land office, pursuant to regulations of the Department of the Interior, said regulations were void, and that defendants by their long experience would secure the annulment of said regulations by appeals to the Commissioner of the General Land Office and Secretary of the Interior, or in some other manner, and that in the meantime the applications would be kept alive by appeals or proceedings pretended to be known to the defendants, so that the victims would be awarded first right of entry in any event; whereas, defendants well knew they could not secure annulment of the regulations referred to, and well knew that no rights to the lands could be secured by such applications, or any appeals in support thereof.

It is alleged that defendants falsely pretended to the victims that defendants had associates in Washington through whom advance information would be obtained concerning cancellation of pending entries; whereas defendants had no means of securing such information that was not possessed by the public at large. It is charged that the purpose was to defraud and to misrepresent, and to induce victims to pay money which defendants intended to appropriate and did appropriate to their own use. Specific acts are charged to have been unlawfully and feloniously done for the purpose of executing the scheme. For example, intending to defraud Emma V. Christensen, defendants at Seattle placed or caused to be placed in the mail, addressed to the Commissioner of Public Lands of the state of Washington, a paper filed in the United States land office, styled an appeal to the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, D.C., from the decision of the local land officers rejecting an application of Emma V. Christensen made through defendants to purchase certain described tracts under the timber and stone acts.

The conspiracy count elaborately charges a combination to devise a scheme to defraud certain people and the public generally by means of the post office establishment by a plan such as has been already outlined. Many overt acts are alleged to have been done in furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the object thereof. Among other acts pleaded it is alleged that papers called appeals from the decision of the local land officers were mailed, letters containing copies of decisions by the Interior Department officials were received wherein the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office was affirmed. Letters...