GEWERTZ v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 October 1929
• Docket Number: No. 3862.,3862.
• Citation: 35 F.2d 27
• Parties: GEWERTZ et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

35 F.2d 27 (1929)

GEWERTZ et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3862.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 24, 1929.

Rehearing Denied October 18, 1929.

Alvin L. Levi, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., and Elmer C. Pfeiffer, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States.

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on conviction of the defendants for having used the United States mail to execute a scheme and artifice, which they had devised, to defraud and obtain goods and property by false and fraudulent representations.

The scheme which the government charges the defendants with devising was the understatement of their liabilities in a financial statement sent through the mail to prospective creditors, called "victims," in order to obtain goods on credit. The statement, representing their financial condition as of December 31, 1924, showed assets of $39,901.54 and liabilities of $7,830.73, or a net worth of $32,070.81. The indictment charged, and the jury found, that the statement did not include, in the list of their liabilities, two promissory notes, aggregating $7,800, which were then outstanding and existing liabilities, and that they knowingly and willfully omitted these from the list of their liabilities, with intent to secure goods on credit and thus defraud their creditors.

Defendants operated under the firm of Gewertz Cotton Goods Company. Morris Gewertz is the owner of the company, and employs his son, Isadore Gewertz, the other defendant. Neither of them testified, and in fact no evidence whatever was offered by the defense. At the close of the government's case, the defendants moved for binding instructions, and contended there, as they do here, that, when all the evidence is considered, it shows nothing more than carelessness on their part, and not a scheme and artifice knowingly and willfully devised with intent to defraud; that it is as consistent with innocence as with guilt; and that under our case of Yusem v. United States, 8 F.(2d) 6, their motion should have been granted. They further say that other errors were made during the trial, which were prejudicial to defendants, and that the judgment in consequence should be reversed.

The learned trial judge in a fair and impartial charge clearly presented the question to the jury of the omission of the notes from their liabilities in the statement sent out to various persons. Under his instruction, in order to convict, the jury had to find that the defendants did not ignorantly or carelessly send out the statement, but knowingly and willfully devised a scheme and artifice to defraud and used the United States mail to execute it. The verdict settles the issue of knowledge and...