Keslinsky v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4633.,4633. |
| Citation | 12 F.2d 767 |
| Parties | KESLINSKY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank J. Looney, of Shreveport, La., for plaintiff in error.
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and J. Fair Hardin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
The count of the indictment on which the plaintiff in error was convicted, after alleging that he was adjudicated bankrupt by the court below on March 22, 1923, charged that he "* * * did knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently conceal, while a bankrupt, from his trustee, property belonging to his estate in bankruptcy; that is to say, that at the time and place, within the jurisdiction aforesaid, the said Isadore Keslinsky did knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and fraudulently conceal from J. H. Edwards, who was duly elected and qualified as said trustee of said bankrupt estate, on May 1, 1923, certain goods, wares, moneys, merchandise, shoes, and personal property belonging to said bankrupt estate, a more particular description of which is to your grand jurors otherwise unknown, all of which the said Isadore Keslinsky then and there well knew was contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States."
By a pleading called a motion to quash, the accused unsuccessfully challenged that count, "* * * for the reason that said count is indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient in law, in that it does not apprise the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, and does not state or specify what particular property or properties belonging to defendant's bankrupt estate defendant is charged to have concealed, or when, where, how, or under what circumstances said concealment is alleged to have been made."
Some time prior to the filing of that pleading, the district attorney, in reply to a letter from the counsel for the accused, stating his purpose to file a motion for a bill of particulars to show what assets belonging to the bankrupt estate the accused was charged with concealing, in a letter to such counsel stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beitel v. United States
...Dunbar v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 325, 156 U.S. 185, 39 L.Ed. 390; United States v. Greenbaum (D.C.) 252 F. 259." Keslinsky v. United States, 5 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 767, 768. Specifically, as to the concealment of property in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 152, most of the pertinent cases are co......
-
Davis v. United States
...Kreuter v. United States, 218 F.2d 532 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 932, 75 S.Ct. 777, 99 L.Ed. 1262 (1955); Keslinsky v. United States, 12 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1926). These judicial principles have descended from the constitutional provisions declaring that "no person shall be held to ......
-
United States v. Mathies
...285, (2 Cir. 1927), the language was "moneys and properties then and there belonging to the estate in bankruptcy". In Keslinsky v. United States, 12 F.2d 767, (6 Cir. 1926), the goods were described as "certain goods, wares, moneys, merchandise, shoes and personal property belonging to said......