People v. Kobey

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation105 Cal.App.2d 548,234 P.2d 251
Decision Date18 July 1951
Docket NumberCr. 4564
PartiesPEOPLE v. KOBEY et al.

William B. Beirne and David H. Cannon, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Frank Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., William E. Simpson, Dist. Atty. of Los Angeles County, Jere J. Sullivan, Joseph T. Powers, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

Defendants appeal from judgments entered pursuant to verdicts of guilty as charged under an indictment for conspiracy to violate sections 337a and 321 of the Penal Code. They demand reversal on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence, errors in receiving certain evidence and errors in giving specified instructions.

The evidence introduced at the trial demonstrates conclusively that appellants were all participants in a vast bookmaking conspiracy which operated in the Los Angeles area for a period of several years prior to the date of the indictment, filed November 17, 1949. The bookmaking organization was carried on behind the trappings of three ostensibly legitimate business entities, to wit, Guarantee Finance Co., a corporation, Guarantee Discount Co., a partnership, and the Colby Collection agency, an apparent partnership. All of such agencies, partnerships, organizations and companies are herein referred to collectively as the 'group,' 'company,' 'organization,' or 'enterprise.'

Headquarters for the conspirators and for the above concerns was located in a two-story business building on Florence Avenue in the suburbs of the city of Los Angeles. Offices for the finance and discount companies were on the ground floor at number 1747, while next door at 1749 was the office of one Handley, resident accountant for the organization. Handley was named defendant in this action, but won an acquittal. Colby Collection Company records were found at both addresses. The upstairs of the building is a large loft room or hall unoccupied except for one end where a large-scale 'phone spot' bookmaking enterprise was conducted with telephones, tables, betting marker racks and the usual paraphernalia for recording wagers on horse races. Access to the loft was gained from a separate entrance as 1747 1/2.

The telephones there were listed on telephone company applications in the fictitious names of a number of firms ranging from a cabinet maker to one 'Stone's Service Station'; but these numbers were listed in the records of the bookmaking organization.

Appellants Kobey, Cobert, Harry Kogus and Albert Kogus were the four principals in the organization, being partners in both the Discount Company and Collection Agency. Kobey and Cobert were president and secretary respectively of the Guarantee Finance Company.

The enterprise had in its employ a number of men and women whose duties consisted of recording wagers telephoned to any of a number of so-called 'phone spots' located throughout the county. Also affiliated with the organization were some 118 'agents' who operated throughout Los Angeles County. Included among them were appellants Conn, Kletnick and Buford. The latter were on a quasi-partnership basis with the organization, soliciting wagers from the public and sharing profits and losses on a 50-50 basis with the central group. The agents were furnished telephone numbers by the company which they in turn passed on to their customers. By the use of a number so supplied the customer called in to the agent his wagers on horses running on the various race tracks throughout the United States. The usual procedure was for the bettor to place his wager on a particular steed, identifying himself by a first name or nickname and identifying his agent by his first name or a given symbol.

Detailed records of the betting were kept at the headquarters of the group where a daily and weekly accounting was made with the agents who then paid off winning customers or, as was more often the case, collected the wagers from the losers. Customers who became in arrears on their accounts were taken to Guarantee Finance Company where a loan was conveniently arranged. However, the funds loaned were immediately transferred to the Discount Company and the agent's account credited conditionally.

The Testimony

There was no want of evidence to warrant the conviction of appellants. The industry and intelligence of the District Attorney and the other law-enforcing agencies examined every avenue leading to the heart of the 'organization.'

1. The first group of witnesses consisted of representatives of the Division of Corporations who made the initial investigation of the Finance Company's operations at its office on Florence Avenue on January 27, 1949. Voluminous records revealing the bookmaking activities of the several entities of the group were discovered, segregated and later seized under subpoena from the Governor's Crime Commission.

The witnesses identified the numerous documents discovered at both ground floor addresses, testified as to admissions made by the accountant Handley that his employer was a large bookmaking organization, related the admissions of Kobey and Cobert as to their own bookmaking activities, and told of their offer to surrender their personal property broker's license on condition that the investigation be discontinued.

One investigator testified as to the unusually small number of loans handled by the finance firm, and that of these loans a large number were unsecured or wage assignment transactions. The excess of the number of loans without security and of those secured by assignments of wages was so suspicious as to create the atmosphere of a criminal enterprise.

2. Members of the vice squad of the Los Angeles Police Department, qualified as experts, identified much of the seized material as being paraphernalia commonly used by bookmakers in Los Angeles. Also, they established that betting markers and detailed records of wagers on horses then racing throughout the country were in common use by men or groups of men engaged in bookmaking. Some of these same police officers testified to their having previously visited the upstairs telephone spot, of having gained access thereto through a rear window which was subsequently barred by the occupants. Police Lieutenant Fisk gave his opinion that the bookmaking industry was in full swing at the time of his investigation which opinion he based upon the presence of telephones, betting markers and numerous worksheets in the loft at 1747 1/2. He testified also that he later had a meeting with appellant Kobey at which time the latter admitted being engaged in bookmaking. Police Lieutenant Wellpott also testified to a meeting with Kobey and to similar admissions.

3. Two other police officers testified to their having apprehended defendant Himebaugh one night in Los Angeles and that he was then in possession of a quantity of bookmaking materials. Appellant Kobey later communicated with Lieutenant Wellpott and sought to recover possession of this parapheralia.

4. Another group of important witnesses consisted of former employees of the organization. All of them had worked at the various 'phone spots' and testified as to the modus operandi of the enterprise in receiving and recording wagers, how they had been hired by one of the principals of the organization and how often they had seen one or more of the appellants in and about the phone locations, how they had been paid their weekly salaries in cash and that the Colby Collection Agency was their listed employer who would furnish them withholding-tax statements.

5. A number of former 'agents' of the enterprise testified in detail as to their functions in procuring customers to place wagers, as to the procedure used in placing the bets with the central group and of the periodic accounting for profits and losses, and as if to weave about appellants their own winding sheet, one Sackman, their tax consultant, testified as to the income of many of the principals of the enterprise and of certain damning admissions by them.

6. A number of former customers testified concerning their betting transactions with agents of the organization, identified appellants Kletnick, Conn and Buford as their particular agents and related incidents and circumstances of such nature as to identify these men as instrumentalities of Guarantee Finance Company. They detailed also the procedure followed in obtaining loans from Guarantee to pay off gambling debts incurred.

7. A telephone company official testified as to the applications of appellants for listings of telephones at the Florence avenue address. The witness Charles H. Manaugh, accountant for the Crime Commission had made an examination and analysis of the books and records seized at the Florence avenue headquarters. He traced a transaction involving a loan to a customer who had been unable to pay his gambling losses. He testified also that the business of the bookmaking organization and that of Guarantee Discount Company were substantially the same. His disclosures with regard to protection pay-offs will constitute an illuminating page in this discussion.

Without unduly extending this report of a shocking chapter of a vice-protected rendezvous, suffice it to say that an abundance of evidence establishes that all of the appellants were parties to a grandscale bookmaking conspiracy. It can hardly be seriously contended otherwise when there is virtually no conflict in the record inasmuch as appellants offered no witnesses in their behalf and not one of them ventured to testify on behalf of himself or his associates or to challenge the testimony of a state witness. However, they do contend that any evidence establishing a conspiracy was supplied only by testimony of those who had served as agents of the organization and that they were accomplices whose testimony was not corroborated.

Ample Corroboration

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • People v. Collins
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1963
    ...judge. Moreover, there was no objection or assignment of misconduct, hence no right to assert the claim on appeal. (People v. Kobey, 105 Cal.App.2d 548, 560, 234 P.2d 251; People v. Brown, 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 117, 19 Cal.Rptr. The judge earnestly endeavored to keep the case going forward, t......
  • People v. Manson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 1976
    ...of the prosecution compel reference to circumstantial evidence of the conduct and relationship of the parties. People v. Kobey (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 548, 234 P.2d 251 confirms that such reference is proper: 'Virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial ......
  • People v. Beverly
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1965
    ...irregularity once waived cannot be asserted on appeal. (People v. Wilson, 78 Cal.App.2d 108, 120, 177 P.2d 567; People v. Kobey, 105 Cal.App.2d 548, 560, 234 P.2d 251.) Evidence That Defendant Was a In the course of his interrogation by Asdrubale defendant stated that he was married to two ......
  • Nathaniel C., In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1991
    ...evidence often is the only means to prove conspiracy. (People v. Osslo (1958) 50 Cal.2d 75, 94, 323 P.2d 397; People v. Kobey (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 548, 562, 234 P.2d 251.) There is no need to show that the parties met and expressly agreed to commit a crime in order to prove a conspiracy. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT