Calnay v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 4301.,4301. |
| Parties | CALNAY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles H. Brennan and Harold C. Faulkner, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Joseph C. Burke, U. S. Atty., and Robert B. Camarillo, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Eugene T. McGann, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was convicted under two counts of an indictment charging him with using the mails of the United States in a scheme to defraud, in violation of section 215 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10385). The scheme as charged was that he advertised in a newspaper for a partner with $1,000 and services, "quick and large returns"; that he intended to represent that he was a producer of motion picture films, and had a contract with the Capitol Film Company of Chicago for as many pictures as he could produce, for which they would pay him $1,500 each; that he desired a partner who would furnish $1,000 to pay the expenses of the production of each picture, whereupon he and his partner would jointly share the profits; whereas the fact was that he had no contract with a film company, and he intended by said scheme and artifice and false and fraudulent pretenses to procure those who received the same to part with their money and property.
The record contains a statement of the testimony, but not the charge of the court, other than that, among other things, the jury were instructed that, if they believed the defendant was acting in good faith, or had a reasonable doubt as to whether he was so acting, they should acquit him. There was no request for an instructed verdict. The plaintiff in error relies upon an assignment that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. That assignment directs attention to no ruling of the trial court, and it cannot avail to bring before us the question whether or not there was substantial evidence to go to the jury to sustain the verdict. Bilboa v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 125; Clements v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 206. In view, however, of the earnest insistence of the plaintiff in error, we have given the record sufficient attention to satisfy our minds that plain error was not committed in the verdict and judgment.
It is contended that the evidence shows only that the plaintiff in error made certain false representations, that false statements or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. United States Cann
...States, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 794; United States v. Rowe, 2 Cir., 56 F.2d 747. 3 Kellogg v. United States, 2 Cir., 126 F. 323. 4 Calnay v. United States, 9 Cir., 1 F.2d 926; Chew v. United States, 8 Cir., 9 F.2d 348. 5 Pandolfo v. United States, 7 Cir., 286 F. 8; Foshay v. United States, 8 Cir., ......
-
Glover v. United States, 9921.
...States, 8 Cir., 260 F. 911; Grant v. United States, 6 Cir., 268 F. 443; Cowl v. United States, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 794. 2 Calnay v. United States, 9 Cir., 1 F.2d 926; Fournier v. United States, 7 Cir., 58 F.2d 3; Mazurosky v. United States, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 958; United States v. Buckner, 2 Cir.......
-
DeMier v. U.S.
...enough if (the defendant is) actuated by an intention to defraud the persons to whom the false statements are made." Calnay v. United States, 1 F.2d 926, 927 (9th Cir. 1924). Intent to defraud may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding defendants' actions. United State......