Gunzburg v. United States, 18727.

Decision Date22 February 1962
Docket NumberNo. 18727.,18727.
Citation297 F.2d 829
PartiesLeonard W. GUNZBURG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

F. Irvin Dymond, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Francis G. Weller, Asst. U. S. Atty., M. Hepburn Many, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, POPE* and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Leonard W. Gunzburg, was convicted of the offense of concealing assets from his trustee in bankruptcy. The primary question on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury and, if so, whether it supports the jury's verdict.

For some time prior to March 31, 1958, appellant owned and operated a jewelry business in New Orleans, Louisiana, under the name of "Manners Jewelers." On March 31, 1958, he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, and he was adjudicated a bankrupt on the same date. Ingard Johannesen was qualified as receiver in bankruptcy on April 18, 1958, and on May 23, 1958, Johannesen qualified as trustee in bankruptcy.

The entire stock of Manners Jewelers was ostensibly auctioned off on June 11, 1958. Prior to that date, the stock had been examined by appraisers, the trustee, jewelry salesmen and other diamond merchants. Approximately 90% of the stock was sold at the auction to a corporation which had been formed by appellant's half-sister and two other parties not related to appellant. This corporation continued to operate the jewelry business at the same location under the name of "Manners Jewelers, Incorporated." Appellant became manager for the store, although he owned no stock in the corporation.

In January 1960, Cecil Shelton, a jewelry salesman who sold large quantities of valuable watches and rings to Manners Jewelers before the bankruptcy, passed the store and allegedly discovered in the display window a number of these articles, none of which he recalled seeing among the stock offered at the auction. The items seen in the window by Shelton were seized by the Government, along with a number of other articles found among the stock in the store and among jewelry which had been pledged by appellant to another jewelry store as security for a loan. All told, appellant was charged with concealing 52 ring mountings, 6 ladies watches and approximately 280 rings, having an estimated total value of about $30,000.

Appellant claims that there was insufficient proof (1) that the contested items actually belonged to Manners Jewelers prior to the bankruptcy, or (2) that these items, assuming they were sold to Manners Jewelers prior to the bankruptcy, were not part of the inventory sold to the corporation at the auction sale.

As to the first contention, we think there was ample evidence to warrant a finding that the questioned jewelry was sold to appellant prior to the bankruptcy in March 1958. Cecil Shelton, who was the sole representative in the New Orleans area of the firms that manufactured these items of jewelry, positively identified them as items he had sold to Manners Jewelers before the bankruptcy. Indeed, Shelton was able to produce the pre-bankruptcy invoices listing every one of the contested items.

Shelton's identification of the jewelry was corroborated by the testimony of Bernard Simon of the Link-Simon Company. Simon identified the diamond ring settings as those which his company, through the Walter F. Bier Company...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Gunzburg v. Johannesen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 3, 1962
    ...relating to the bankruptcy of Leonard W. Gunzburg. Frellsen v. Johannessen, 5 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 925; Gunzburg v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 297 F.2d 829 No. 18727, January 12, 1962. Presented here is the Bankrupt's contention that the District Court erred in approving the Referee's den......
  • United States v. Brookins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 6, 1971
    ...between indictment and proof, the test is to determine whether substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced, Gunzburg v. United States, 297 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1962), and a defendant's receipt of or failure to request a bill of particulars is pertinent in determining such prejudice, Un......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT