Lyman v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2746. |
| Parties | LYMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Paul Schenck, Joseph Citron, and Richard Kittrelle, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Albert Schoonover, U.S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was convicted under the first of six counts of an indictment charging him with using the mails of the United States in the execution of a scheme devised to defraud various persons of their property and money, and having been sentenced to imprisonment by the judgment of the court below, has brought the case here by writ of error.
The count of the indictment under which conviction was had alleged, in substance, that on the 1st day of May, 1911, and at all other times mentioned in the indictment, the Panama Development Company was a corporation organized under the laws of Arizona, and was at all times under the complete control of the defendant; that on or about May 1, 1911, the defendant, at the city of Los Angeles, intended to devise and had devised a scheme to defraud various persons, to the grand jurors unknown, out of their money and property, by inducing them through false and fraudulent representations to pay and transfer to the said corporation their money and property, in the belief that they were paying and transferring it to the corporation as agent for the republic of Panama in the purchase of lands belonging to that government, the defendant at the time well knowing and intending by means of such false representations to secure and convert to the use of the corporation and of himself a large part of such money and property, the exact amount of which being to the grand jurors unknown; that the scheme involved the organization as a corporation of the Panama Development Company by the defendant, and the advertisement by him to each and all of the persons intended to be so defrauded under and in the name of the corporation, that the latter had a paid-up capital of $50,000, some of whose officers and directors were men of prominence and connected with and employed by the Panamanian government, and that the other of such officers and directors were men of prominence elsewhere, and among its false and fraudulent representations were the following:
That the said corporation was the agent of the said government for the sale of its lands, consisting of agricultural, timber and mineral lands in the districts of Cocle, Veragua, and Ciriqui which lands the government of that country offered for sale through the said corporation as its agent to persons desiring to purchase them on application made through the said corporation at a price varying from $3 to $5 an acre payable one-half in cash to the corporation as such agent at the time of the making of the application and the balance of the purchase price to be paid to the corporation within four years; that upon the making of such application and first payment the corporation would immediately file the application with the government of Panama, through the representative of the corporation in that republic, and that thereupon the government would immediately make the allotment of the land so applied for to the applicant in the order that such applications were received, and would immediately issue a provisional title to the land to the applicant, and a complete title upon the full payment of the purchase price and the cultivation of four-fifths of the agricultural land; that the corporation had experts in the republic of Panama familiar with the location of the land, who could and would select the best of such lands for the persons making applications through the corporation, which corporation through such experts could select better lands for the applicants than if they were personally present in the republic; that the corporation could and would furnish maps showing the location of such lands so offered for sale, and had sold to an American colony 10,000 acres of such land situate in the district of Agua Dulce, in the province of Cocle, and had offered for sale and was selling such government lands situate in the same district upon applications made to it on the terms and conditions stated; that a railroad was being constructed from the city of Panama to the city of David in the said republic, and that the corporation was clearing and cultivating some of the government land which had theretofore been sold through it as such agent, and that it would clear and cultivate such government land so purchased through it; that it had and offered for sale 16,000 acres of the government timber land situate in the province of Veragua, and that on August 1, 1911, the price of the government agricultural lands so offered for sale would be increased by the government to $6 an acre, and that if, at any time within two years after making application for the purchase of any of such land, the applicant was dissatisfied with his purchase, any and all money and property so paid and transferred from the applicant on such a purchase would be returned to the applicant by the corporation on demand; that each of the representations and advertisements so made were made and intended to be made as a part of the said scheme to defraud, by inducing the persons to whom they were so made to part with their money and property; that the defendant, intending and having devised the said scheme, did on the 28th day of August, 1911, at the city of Los Angeles, and within the jurisdiction of the court below, for the purpose of executing the scheme, and of defrauding and of attempting to defraud, knowingly and unlawfully placed and caused to be placed in the post office a certain letter, in substance, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bogish, Application of
...(9 Cir. 1935); Durkin v. United States, 62 F.2d 305 (1 Cir. 1932); Peters v. United States, 97 F.2d 500 (9 Cir. 1938); Lyman v. United States, 241 F. 945 (9 Cir. 1917); People v. Winn, 324 Ill. 428, 155 N.E. 337 (Sup.Ct.1927); Lum Yan v. United States, 193 F. 970 (9 Cir. 1912); McDaniel v. ......
-
United States v. Mandel
...Y., 192 U. S. 585, 24 S. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575; Hartman v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 168 F. 30; Ripper v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 178 F. 24; Lyman v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 241 F. 945; Weeks v. U. S., supra. But it can no longer be doubted that, when the evidence results from the activities of those representin......
-
MacDaniel v. United States
... ... 383, 395, 34 Sup.Ct. 341, 58 ... L.Ed. 652, L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; Holt ... v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 31 Sup.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed ... 1021, 20 Ann.Cas. 1138; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United ... States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 Sup.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319; ... Lyman v. United States (9 C.C.A.) 241 F. 945, 154 ... C.C.A. 581; Wiggins v. United States (2 C.C.A.) 272 ... F. 41; Cabiale v. United States (9 C.C.A.) 276 F ... 769, 772; Winkle v. United States (8 C.C.A.) 291 F ... 493. See, also, 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 254a; 3 Wigmore ... on Evidence, ... ...
-
United States v. O'Dowd
...otherwise competent, has been unlawfully acquired. Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585, 24 Sup.Ct. 372, 48 L.Ed. 575; Lyman v. U.S. (9 C.C.A.) 241 F. 945, 154 C.C.A. 581. Within what time defendant should have made his in order to be timely, need not be determined, because, upon any view of the......