Littell v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | 1,665. |
| Citation | 169 F. 620 |
| Parties | LITTELL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment drawn under Act April 18, 1884, c. 26, 23 Stat. 11 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3679), which charged that, with intent to defraud one Josephine C. Dabney, he falsely assumed and pretended to be an officer and employe, acting under authority of the United States and of the Treasury Department thereof, to wit as an officer of the United States Secret Service, and in such pretended character as such officer and employe as aforesaid, did unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously demand and obtain from said Josephine C. Dabney a thing of value, to wit, etc. There were four counts, charging, respectively First, that he obtained board and lodging at the house of the prosecuting witness of the amount and value of $30; second that he obtained of her $2 in money; third, that he obtained of her $5 in money; fourth, that he obtained of her $600 in money. The evidence was that Josephine C. Dabney, with her two daughters, aged 16 and 17 years, conducted a rooming house in Seattle, Wash., for the support of herself and her daughters, and that they had no other means of support. In answer to a matrimonial advertisement which she published in a newspaper, the plaintiff in error appeared at her house and by way of reference stated that he was an officer of the United States Secret Service, and was then in Seattle to superintend and hasten the work on the Federal building, and other works which the government was then constructing. He made arrangement with Mrs. Dabney for board and lodging at her house at $6 a week. Subsequently he borrowed from her the sum of $2, and later the sum of $5. About four weeks after he first appeared at her house, Mrs. Dabney sold out her lodging house business, obtaining therefor the sum of $950, and upon the application of the plaintiff in error, and his representation that, if he had $600 available at once, he could make an excellent investment, she loaned to him $600, for which he gave her a draft on a man in Detroit who, he said, was his father.
F. H. Holzheimer and W. A. Holzheimer, for plaintiff in error.
Elmer E. Todd, U.S. Atty., and Charles T. Hutson, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff in error contends that there was no evidence to go to the jury to show that Mrs. Dabney relied upon the representations of the plaintiff in error that he was an officer of the United States in extending credit to him and loaning him money, and that the evidence shows, on the other hand, that the credit was given and money was loaned on other considerations, especially upon consideration of the relations resulting from the answer of the plaintiff in error to the advertisement of Mrs. Dabney and his subsequent engagement of marriage with her.
This contention is not sustainable. An examination of the record produces the conviction that the plaintiff in error, before going to Mrs. Dabney's house, deliberately planned to impersonate an officer of the United States falsely for the purpose of cheating Mrs. Dabney. He took pains to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rippee, 91-2485
...Service." (Appellant's Reply Brief at 3). The Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit have rejected similar arguments. In Littell v. United States, 169 F. 620 (9th Cir.1909), the defendant obtained board, lodging and a loan of $600 for a personal investment on the basis of his statement that h......
-
U.S. v. Etheridge
...to act lawfully under the authority of the United States." 241 U.S. at 106, 36 S.Ct. 19. The Solicitor General cited Littell v. United States, 169 F. 620 (9th Cir. 1909), and United States v. Ballard, 118 F. 757 (W.D.Mo.1902), in addition to Lamar stands for rejection of the contention that......
-
Haid v. United States, 10978.
...in the pretense. Therefore the prosecution faced the necessity of showing the state of the victim's mind. In Littell v. United States, 9 Cir., 169 F. 620, at page 621, this court "The plaintiff in error contends that there was no evidence to go to the jury to show that Mrs. Dabney relied up......
-
Brafford v. United States
...It is enough that the gasoline was procured by means of the representations stated. United States v. Ballard (D.C.) 118 F. 757; Littell v. United States, supra. evidence with respect to the Owl Company transaction, while differing in details from that of the Lockwood Company, has similar fe......