Horman v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 June 1902 |
| Docket Number | 1,066. |
| Citation | 116 F. 350 |
| Parties | HORMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas H. Darby and Hiram M. Rulison, for plaintiff in error
Sherman T. McPherson and Edward P. Moulinier, for defendant in error.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted in the district court for a violation of section 5480 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended March 2, 1889 (25 Stat 873). Omitting provisions which are not necessary to the disposition of the pending case, this section reads as follows:
'If any person having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud to be effected by either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with any person, whether resident within or outside the United States, by means of the post office establishment of the United States, or by inciting such other person or any person to open communication with the person so devising or intending, shall, in and for executing such scheme or article or attempting so to do, place or cause to be placed, any letter, packet, circular, pamphlet or advertisement, in any post office, branch post office, or street or hotel letter box of the United States, to be sent or delivered by the said post office establishment, or shall take or receive any such therefrom, such person so misusing the post office establishment, shall, upon conviction, be punishable,' etc.
It has been held that under this section it is essential to work a conviction, that the government must charge in the indictment and establish in the proof: (1) That the person charged has devised a scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) that he has intended to effect this scheme by opening or intending to open correspondence with some person through the post-office establishment, or by inciting such other person to open communication with him; (3) and that in carrying out such scheme the accused has either deposited a letter or packet in the post office, or taken or received one therefrom. Stokes v. U.S., 157 U.S. 187, 15 Sup.Ct. 617, 39 L.Ed. 667.
The indictment in this case charges in substance: That the plaintiff in error and others pretended and claimed to have within their knowledge information of certain unlawful acts and crimes committed by Howard Douglass, Minnie D. Douglass and Dr. Crank, which would tend to disgrace and degrade them, and which the accused threatened to make public and divulge to the world through newspapers and letters unless the said persons yielded and paid to the accused the sum of $7,000. That the accused did not expect or intend to furnish or exchange anything of value in consideration of the payment of the said sum of money, but threatened that, unless the same was paid, they would blacken the character and ruin the reputation of the said persons, who, through fear of said threats and exposure of said pretended crimes, practiced by this scheme of fraud, commonly called 'blackmail,' were expected to submit to the extortion of the said sum of money. That the scheme and artifice was devised and concocted with the intent and for the purpose of defrauding said persons out of the $7,000. That the accused, in pursuance of the said scheme and artifice, did unlawfully and knowingly, for the purpose of executing said scheme and artifice to defraud, and in order so to do, misuse the post office of the United States by depositing, placing, and causing to be deposited therein, at the post office at Cincinnati, Ohio, a letter intended to be sent, and which in fact was sent, through the mails of the United States, to one Howard Douglass. A copy of the letter is then set forth, in which the alleged threats are made, and in which the exposure is threatened unless the sum of money is paid. The second count of the indictment is like unto the first, adding the averment that the accused claimed to have information of a specific unlawful act and crime of which exposure was threatened by the accused, of which crime said person was innocent, as the accused well knew, but made such charges in an attempt to work out the scheme and artifice. A letter is set out containing the threats of exposure unless the sum of money was paid. Exception was taken to the indictment by motion to quash, by demurrer, by exception to the charge, and by motion in arrest of judgment. In these several ways it was attempted to raise the question as to the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense under section 5480 of the Revised Statutes. The court below was of the opinion that such an offense was charged, and overruled the objections of the plaintiff in error. These rulings constitute the principal grounds of review upon this writ of error.
The gist of the offense is the criminal use of the mails of the United States. U.S. v. Jones (C.C.) 10 F. 469. It is the purpose of the statute to prevent their use in aid of schemes and artifices having in view the defrauding of others of their money and property. It is claimed in behalf of the plaintiff in error that the use of the phrase 'any scheme or artifice to defraud' necessarily limits the operation of the statute to such schemes or artifices as are accomplished by deception or trick adapted to defraud. It is said that only by such means can another be defrauded, within the proper meaning of the statute; that in the present indictment no deception is charged; that the persons charged knew whether the threatened exposure was of matters true or false, and hence could not be defrauded if they paid their money for silence. The phrase 'scheme or artifice to defraud' is to be construed bearing in mind the underlying purpose of the statute to preserve the use of the mails to legitimate ends. The use of the mail by sending letters to others must be in aid of the scheme designed to defraud. What is here meant by 'to defraud'? Obviously the statute is dealing with the wrongful purpose to injure, with which the scheme or artifice must be connected. These words, in the phrase quoted, are not descriptive of the character of the artifice or scheme which has been devised, but rather of the wrongful purpose involved in devising the same, and putting it into operation by means of the mail. This purpose must be to injure, which doubtless may be inferred when the scheme has such effect as a necessary result of carrying it out. The terms 'artifice' and 'scheme' are those descriptive of the thing to be planned or devised. 'Artifice' means 'subtle or deceptive art in contriving; trickery; cunning; strategy; finesse; as to lure by artifice.' Stand. Dict. According to the same authority, as well as the common understanding of the term, a 'scheme' may be of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mandel
...In support of the argument that acts urging disobedience to laws were "fraudulent", the government cited the case of Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350 (6th Cir. 1902), a mail fraud case, which had held that a "scheme to defraud" included simple blackmail letters which involved no element ......
-
U.S. v. Haga, 86-1646
...have been given a wide meaning, wider than their ordinary scope.... [However, the construction of 'defraud' in Horman v. United States, 53 C.C.A. 570, 116 F. 350 (6th Cir.1902) ] cannot be used as authority to include within the legal definition of a conspiracy to defraud the United States ......
-
U.S. v. Somerstein
...others, fraudulent intent may be inferred from the scheme itself. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1181 (quoting Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 187 U.S. 641, 23 S.Ct. 841, 47 L.Ed. 345 (1902)). Where the scheme does not cause injury to the alleged vi......
-
Ryan v. Ohio Edison Co., 77-3458
...F.2d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 1976) (statute "is a broad proscription of behavior for purposes of protecting society"); Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 352-53 (6th Cir. 1902), Cert. denied, 187 U.S. 641, 23 S.Ct. 841, 47 L.Ed. 345 (any scheme calculated to injure another, to deprive him of h......