Fox v. United States, 3808.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1935
• Docket Number: No. 3808.,3808.
• Parties: FOX v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

77 F.2d 210 (1935)

FOX v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3808.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 24, 1935.

James Damron, of Huntington, W. Va. (Jess Hammock, of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for appellant.

George I. Neal, U. S. Atty., of Huntington, W. Va. (Charles M. Love, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, W. Va., and L. R. Via, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for the United States.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge.

W. B. Fox, the appellant, was found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to six months in prison by the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington, on the 2d day of November, 1934. From that judgment, Fox prosecutes this appeal.

The proceeding for contempt against Fox was by information filed by the United States Attorney, charging that Fox, who was not an attorney at law, received money from the mother of one Belford Smith, said Belford Smith having been charged with the violation of section 3296, Revised Statutes of the United States (26 USCA § 404); that the said Fox represented to the said Smith and members of his family that he, Fox, had certain connections with the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, where the said Belford Smith would be tried, and that by means of said connections he, Fox, had influence with the officers, agents, and employees of said court, by means of which he, Fox, could secure a continuance of the case against Belford Smith and otherwise use his influence for an improper aiding of the said Belford Smith in the course of the prosecution against him; that by means of the representations made by Fox said Belford Smith and his mother were led to believe that the said court and its officers were subject to Fox's improper influence; and that Fox secured from the mother of said Smith the sum of $60.

The receipt given by Fox on the payment of the money read as follows:

"8/25/34

"Received of W. E. Smith Sixty & 00/100 dollars in full, for work & if work is not completed the full amount will be refunded.

"Signed W. B. Fox."

A motion to quash the information and the rule awarded thereon was made on behalf of the defendant, which motion the court overruled, and, after hearing evidence, the judge below found Fox guilty.

A number of questions are raised on behalf of the defendant, it being assigned as error that the court did not have sufficient evidence upon which to find the defendant guilty; that the court erred in refusing to quash the information; that certain evidence was admitted that was improper; that the action of the court, during the hearing, in certain respects was unfair to the defendant; and that there was a variance between the allegations in the information and the proof offered upon the trial.

We are of the opinion that the action of the court overruling the motion to quash was proper.

This court had occasion to discuss this and similar questions here involved in the case of Fanning v. United States, 72 F.(2d) 929, and in that case we held that the particularity required of an indictment is not necessary in an information charging contempt of court, and that if the defendant considered the charges too indefinite his remedy was to move the court for a bill of particulars. Fanning v. United States, supra, and authorities there cited. Here there was no motion for a bill of particulars and an examination of the information, and a study of the evidence offered, leads us to the conclusion that the defendant was properly put upon notice as to the charge against him.

Objection is made on behalf of the defendant Fox to the admission of certain testimony tending to show the payment of money to Fox by a Mrs. Carpenter, whose son was likewise being...