Hill v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 7363.,7363. |
| Citation | 73 F.2d 223 |
| Parties | HILL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
G. S. Peck, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
M. Neil Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Edward S. Chastain, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Edwin R. Hill, a lawyer, and Jasper F. Anderson, a physician, were convicted of using the mails for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud, in violation of 18 USCA § 338. The scheme alleged in the indictment was to collect damages from a railroad company in the names of Kierbow and Hunnicutt by falsely representing that on August 14, 1933, they were passengers on one of its trains which was in fact wrecked, and that they were injured in the wreck. Hill, who alone appeals, contends in support of his assignments of error that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, and (2) in overruling objections to questions on his cross-examination seeking an admission that he had attempted to procure a witness to give false testimony in two suits for damages tried in 1927 against a different defendant, and in which he was attorney for the plaintiffs.
Although a passenger train operated by the railroad company was in fact derailed near Atlanta, Ga., on August 14, 1932, neither Kierbow nor Hunnicutt was a passenger on it, or was injured in the wreck. In September, 1933, Hill wrote and sent through the mail three letters which are set out in separate counts of the indictment. They were all calculated to further the fraudulent scheme, if there was one. On August 15th, the day after the train was derailed, Hill sent a note by hand to Kierbow, requesting Kierbow to call at his office in Atlanta on the 16th, stating, "We can make some cash in a few days." According to the government's evidence, Kierbow called at Hill's office at the time mentioned in the note, whereupon Hill informed Kierbow that a train of the railroad company had been wrecked and proposed that Kierbow pretend to have been a passenger on it and to have been injured in the wreck; and that Kierbow procure another man who would pretend that he too had been a passenger on the train and had also been injured. Hill told Kierbow Dr. Anderson would make examinations and furnish reports upon which damages could be collected for the supposed injuries, and that he would present claims therefor to the railroad company. Kierbow, replying that he had not been in the wreck, and did not know there had been one, did not at that time agree to Hill's proposal, but within an hour went to claim agent Webb and told him "all that Mr. Hill had said," and on the following day went with Webb to the attorney for the railroad company. Kierbow, referring to the railroad men, testified that "they told me to get another man and go back to Mr. Hill and play along with him, and see how far he would go." Within two or three days after this last interview, Kierbow and Hunnicutt went to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. United States, 9921.
...course that for a conviction a scheme to defraud must be successful. The contrary has been too clearly and too often held. Hill v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 223; Norton v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 753, The majority opinion is therefore correct in stating that a scheme to defraud ......
-
Farley v. Heininger
...40 F.2d 363, 367; Wilson v. United States, 2 Cir., 190 F. 427, 434; Busch v. United States, 8 Cir., 52 F.2d 79, 82; Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 223, 224. ...
-
Hartwell v. United States, 9135.
...the scheme. Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S.Ct. 508, 40 L.Ed. 709; United States v. Herzig, D.C., 26 F.2d 487; Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 223; Muench v. United States, 8 Cir., 96 F.2d Nor does appellant stand much better on the point which seems to be his main relia......
-
United States v. Zalewski, 20456.
...represented to him are not as they actually exist. The defendant's second contention is not supported by the authorities. Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 223; Tucker v. United States, 6 Cir., 224 F. 833, certiorari denied 241 U.S. 668, 36 S.Ct. 552, 60 L. Ed. 1229; Grant v. United St......