Faulkner v. United States
Decision Date | 10 December 1907 |
Docket Number | 1,616. |
Citation | 157 F. 840 |
Parties | FAULKNER v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sterling A. Wood (Fred S. Ferguson and Zell Gaston, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Oliver D. Street, U.S. Atty.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error was tried on two indictments for violating Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 5480, as amended by Act March 2, 1889, c 393, Sec. 1, 25 Stat. 873 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696). This statute provides for the punishment of one 'who having devised a scheme or artifice to defraud,' to be effected by the use of the mails, posts a letter to carry out the scheme. The plaintiff in error was engaged in business in Birmingham under the name of the 'Birmingham Commission Company,' and the chief element in the alleged scheme to defraud was the issuance by him of a circular which it was alleged and proved he sent by mail to his customers and to those of whom he solicited business. The circular is as follows:
Birmingham Commission Co.'
A demurrer was filed to the indictment on the ground that there was no sufficient averment of a scheme to defraud. The demurrer was overruled, but we do not deem it necessary to consider the assignment of error based on that ruling. Conceding that the scheme is sufficiently charged, there must be proof of it before the plaintiff in error could be rightfully convicted. The evidence shows without conflict that Faulkner was in fact engaged in business as advertised by him. He had, in fact, a large business. There was uncontradicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harrison v. United States
...... . . On what. we think an exhaustive review of all the reported cases. arising under this statute, we do not find any one which. seems, on its face, to be of the class we have mentioned--. exaggerated claims of merits in articles of inherent. utility-- unless it is Faulkner v. U.S., 157 F. 840,. 85 C.C.A. 204, in which the Circuit Court of Appeals in the. Fifth Circuit reversed a conviction because based merely on. exaggerated advertising. The subject is also considered by. Judge Severens, then District Judge, who said, in U.S. v. Staples (D.C.) 45 F. 195, ......
-
Kaufmann v. United States
...... that fact it was wholly inadmissible. The testimony in the. instant case was very different, was admitted for an entirely. different purpose, under different facts, and so that case is. inapplicable. . . He also. cited Faulkner v. United States, 157 F. 840, 85. C.C.A. 204, which holds that the failure of one, who makes. substantially true advertisements of his business, to make. settlement with some of his creditors, does not make it a. question to be submitted to the jury. The mere statement of. the proposition ......
-
United States v. Rabinowitz, 15138.
...removes this case from the ordinary run of mail fraud prosecutions. Harrison v. United States, 200 F. 662 (C.C.A.6); Faulkner v. United States, 157 F. 840 (C.C.A.5). Cf. United States v. Staples, 45 F. 195 (U.S.D.C.W.D.Mich). The article sold here was not a worthless stock. The defendants w......
-
Pelz v. United States, 227.
...statement is false or true, but whether the scheme as a whole is to defraud. McLendon v. U. S., 2 F.(2d) 660 (C. C. A. 6); Faulkner v. U. S., 157 F. 840 (C. C. A. 5). Criminality is established only when the false representation or pretense is the operating cause and basis of the conspiracy......