Cholakos v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 November 1924
• Docket Number: No. 4072.,4072.
• Citation: 2 F.2d 447
• Parties: CHOLAKOS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

2 F.2d 447 (1924)

CHOLAKOS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4072.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

November 5, 1924.

Walter D. Meals, of Cleveland, Ohio (Reed, Meals, Orgill & Maschke, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Fred S. Day, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen and M. A. McCormack, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.

Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.

KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of violating White Slave Act (Act June 25, 1910, c. 395) § 2 (U. S. Comp. Stat. § 8813); the specific charge being that he aided and assisted in obtaining transportation in interstate commerce for Edna Hanshaw Edens, from Covington, Ky., to Lorain, Ohio, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery and other immoral purposes; more in detail, that he telegraphed the girl $15 at Covington, with the intent and purpose that she should use the money to obtain transportation from Covington to Lorain, there to engage in prostitution and debauchery, and to aid and assist her in obtaining such transportation, and that by the use of the money the girl obtained the transportation for the purpose stated.

Plaintiff in error kept a rooming house for men at Lorain. Previous to the alleged transportation, the girl had spent several months in this rooming house during two or more separate periods. She testified she was there as a commercial prostitute, sharing with plaintiff in error the avails of her prostitution; also that she had sexual relations with him. He denied both of these allegations, and says she was there as a chambermaid; he paying her as such. She testified that shortly before the alleged transportation plaintiff in error wrote, asking her to come back; that she wrote him she would, if he would send her the money, and wired him to send her $15 by Western Union, and that he did so. Plaintiff in error admits receiving her telegram and wiring the money, but denies that he wrote her or that he received her letter. She testified she used the money for transportation expenses from Covington to Lorain, and that on reaching the latter place — apparently about three weeks after the money was wired — she resumed prostitution at the rooming house, sharing with plaintiff in error the money so acquired, and, inferably at least, that she continued such relations until she and plaintiff in error were arrested, which seems to have been several weeks later.

Plaintiff in error denied that the money was sent for such transportation or for an immoral purpose, as well as knowledge that she intended to or did engage in prostitution. There was testimony tending to corroborate the testimony of each of these two persons. The assignments of error presented are aimed solely at the charge of the court.¹ The girl did not go directly from Covington to Lorain. She went first into West Virginia, where she remained for a time, going thence to Cleveland (where she stayed at least a couple of days), and from there to Lorain, having married one Stanley in Cleveland on the day she went to Lorain.

1. In the course of the charge the court said, in substance, that if defendant furnished the girl, when outside of Ohio, the means of transportation into that state, thereby inducing her to make the trip for the purpose charged, it would be immaterial whether the prostitution took place after she reached Ohio. This instruction correctly stated the law. Wilson v. United States, 232 U. S. 563, 570, 34 S. Ct. 347, 58 L. Ed. 728; Rizzo v. United States (C. C. A. 3) 275 F. 51. And cf. Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U. S. 326, 33 S. Ct. 285, 57 L. Ed. 528, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 911. Whether she used the specific bills paid her by the telegraph company...