Oesting v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2712. |
| Citation | 234 F. 304 |
| Parties | OESTING v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The plaintiff in error was sentenced upon a plea of guilty to an indictment the substance of which is as follows: That at a time and place named, under the name of Dr. Jordan, L. J Jordan, Incorporated, and Jordan's Museum of Anatomy, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California, and under the guise of the said Jordan's Museum of Anatomy, the defendant devised a certain scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money by means of certain false pretenses, representations, or promises, to be effected by means of the post office establishment of the United States. The scheme was then set forth, which was in substance that the defendant should place advertisements in newspapers of general circulation, or in letters, documents, or other prints setting forth that Dr Jordan was a physician practicing in the city and county of San Francisco, especially qualified to treat private diseases of men, enumerating the diseases, and had cured many persons afflicted with said diseases and by means of said advertisements and other prints he then and there intended to induce certain persons named, and divers other persons whose names are unknown, to communicate and open correspondence with Dr. Jordan by means of the post office establishment of the United States, relative to their real or supposed ailments; that when said persons would communicate with Dr Jordan, whom the defendant then and there well knew was not a doctor, and did not exist, the said Dr. Jordan should write or communicate with such persons by means of letters placed in the post office, stating to them, with intent to defraud each and all of them, and without any proper knowledge of the real condition of said persons, that they were afflicted with diseases which he could cure, and that he would furnish treatments for the cure of such alleged diseases upon the payment of certain sums of money, thereby intending to induce said persons to send to him large sums of money for the purpose of procuring from him medicine and treatment for diseases which they had been induced by the defendant to believe themselves afflicted with, etc., and that he would then send to each of said persons medicine or treatment not properly designed and having no value for their cure, he having no professional knowledge of such person's condition, or whether they were diseased, or whether such medicine or treatment would benefit them. The indictment then proceeded to describe the acts done by the defendant in executing his scheme and artifice, by writing letters, copies of which letters are set forth. No objection of any kind was made to the indictment in the court below.
Herbert Choynski and James Raleigh Kelly, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
John W. Preston, U.S. Atty., and Annette Abbott Adams, both of San Francisco, Cal., for the United States.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant in error contends that the plaintiff in error having pleaded guilty to the indictment and having presented no objection to the indictment in the court below, cannot be heard to object to the same in this court. Many authorities are cited for and against the contention. We may accept the rule to be this: First, that after a plea of guilty the only objection that can be made to the indictment in the court of first instance is that it 'fails to describe the various acts intended to be proved with that reasonable certainty which the law requires to constitute a valid indictment' (United States v. Bayaud (C.C.) 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shroyer.
...even if he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court.’ Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed. 849; Oesting v. U. S., 2 Cir., 234 F. 304; Danaher v. U. S., 8 Cir., 39 F.2d 325; Nicholson v. U. S., 8 Cir., 79 F.2d 387; Moore v. U. S., 10 Cir., 56 F.2d 794; 27 A. J. ‘Indic......
-
Donaldson v. Read Magazine
...16 S.Ct. 508—511, 512, 40 L.Ed. 709; Wiser v. Lawler, supra, 189 U.S. at page 264, 23 S.Ct. at page 626, 47 L.Ed. 802; Oesting v. United States, 9 Cir., 234 F. 304, 307. People have a right to assume that fraudulent advertising traps will not be laid to ensnare them. 'Laws are made to prote......
-
Foshay v. United States, 9708
...(C. C. A. 2); Harrison v. United States, 200 F. 662 (C. C. A. 6); United States v. Goldman, 207 F. 1002 (D. C. Ohio); Oesting v. United States, 234 F. 304 (C. C. A. 9); New v. United States, 245 F. 710 (C. C. A. 9); Gouled v. United States, 273 F. 506 (C. C. A. 2); Brewer v. United States, ......
-
United States v. Harrison
...only has waived all objections as to the form of the indictment,— Nicholson v. United States, 8 Cir., 79 F.2d 387, 389; Oesting v. United States, 9 Cir., 234 F. 304, 306, certiorari denied 242 U.S. 647, 37 S.Ct. 241, 61 L.Ed. 544; United States v. Bayaud, 16 F. 376, 383, 384, C.C., So. Dist......