Headley v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 4193. |
| Citation | 294 F. 888 |
| Parties | HEADLEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Q Mahaffey, of Texarkana, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
Randolph Bryant, U.S. Atty., of Sherman, Tex.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error and one C. Edwards were indicted for fraudulently using the mails in violation of section 215 of the Penal Code of the United States (Comp. St. Sec. 10385). The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon the first count of the indictment, has sued out this writ of error, and presents three questions for review in argument and brief.
The first relates to the sufficiency of the count of the indictment on which he was convicted. His criticism of it is that it alleges the connection between the use of the mails and the scheme to defraud as a conclusion, and without setting out the facts on which it is based. The case of Tillery v. U.S., 285 F. 119, decided by this court sustained an indictment in which the averment, in this respect, was that the use of the mails was 'for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice to defraud.'
The second question presented is whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have been justified in finding that the defendants caused a use to be made of the mails in executing the scheme to defraud. The alleged victim Westeson, made a trip from Texarkana, where the fraud was initiated, to Wichita Falls, to procure the money, which was to be the basis of the bank credit, which the defendants represented to be needed to secure the money, stated by them to have been won by the victim and defendants together. Instead of bringing the money back with him, the victim established a credit in his favor at a bank in Wichita Falls. Upon being informed of this, the defendant Headley expressed his disappointment, and told Westeson that it would take too long to get the money by drawing on the Wichita Falls bank for it, and also said, 'We will have to do the best we can about it. ' Afterwards Westeson deposited his check for $20,000 in the Texarkana bank, which that bank collected for him. The Texarkana bank forwarded Westeson's check by mail to the Wichita Falls bank, and this was the use of the mails relied on in the indictment. The use of the mails by the Texarkana bank would be a use by the defendants, if defendants induced the bank to act. Westeson as a witness testified that the defendants and himself had agreed that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Decker, 19991.
...the fact of mailing. Counsel for the government have cited in their brief a number of such cases, among which may be noted Headley v. United States, 5 Cir., 294 F. 888; Levinson v. United States, 6 Cir., 5 F.2d 567, certiorari denied 269 U.S. 564, 46 S.Ct. 23, 70 L.Ed. 414; McIntyre v. Unit......
-
Decker v. United States, 5175.
...this question to the jury. Thus, District Judge Grubb, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, in Headley v. United States, 294 F. 888, 890, said: "The custom and course of business of the witness Chance as to the place in which he ordinarily deposited mail matter wa......
-
Harris v. United States, 5128.
...proof of a settled custom is sufficient to take the question of the use of the mails to the jury, is well established. Headley v. United States, 5 Cir., 294 F. 888; Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 17 S.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799; Demolli v. United States, 8 Cir., 144 F. 363, 6 L.R.A., N.S......
-
Barnes v. United States
...the mailing was in execution or attempted execution of the scheme, is not the admission of a mere legal conclusion. Headley v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 888, 889. It is an admission that the mailing had a definite relation to the scheme to defraud, and that the purpose involved was to......