Popham v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4698.,4698. |
| Citation | 11 F.2d 966 |
| Parties | POPHAM v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Philip D. Beall and John M. Coe, both of Pensacola, Fla., and Wm. C. Hodges and Fred H. Davis, both of Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff in error.
Arthur E. Sager, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Fred Cubberly, U. S. Atty., and George Earl Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pensacola, Fla., for the United States.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment of conviction upon the first and several other counts of an indictment charging that the defendant, William Lee Popham, having devised a scheme for obtaining money by means of false and fraudulent representations, for the purpose of executing such scheme placed a letter therein sufficiently described in a post office, to be sent and delivered by the post office establishment of the United States, in violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10385). The representations charged to be false consisted of statements to the effect that defendant owned lands, especially submerged lands, which were suitable for the propagation and cultivation of oysters, near Apalachicola, Fla., from which purchasers would realize exceedingly large returns upon their investments. These representations, some 24 in number, were alleged in the first count of the indictment and adopted by reference in the other counts.
The overruling of the demurrer to the indictment on the ground that it was duplicitous forms the basis of the first assignment of error. In United States v. Young, 34 S. Ct. 303, 232 U. S. 155, 58 L. Ed. 548, it is said: "The elements of an offense under section 215 are (a) a scheme devised or intended to be devised to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses; and (b) for the purpose of executing such scheme, or attempting to do so, the placing of any letter in any post office of the United States to be sent or delivered by the post office establishment." Only one scheme is here charged, and it is not an objection that it was to be consummated by means of several representations. We therefore are of opinion that the demurrer to the first count of the indictment was properly overruled. The other counts need not be considered, as the sentence was less than could have been imposed under the first count. Abrams v. United States, 40 S. Ct. 17, 250 U. S. 616...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boston Ins. Co. v. Hudson
... ... From these authorities it would seem clear that the amended complaint states no cause of action against the plaintiff in error. It shows upon its face a breach of the warranty ... ...
-
Koehler v. United States
...objection to that portion of the charge now complained of, and the trial court may not now be put in error in this regard. Popham v. United States, 5 Cir., 11 F.2d 966. The record also reveals that after such statement, the trial court continued its charge: "The proof of a general intent to......
-
Estep v. United States
...state the ground of his objection and that the ground stated point out an error prejudicial to the defendant. Cf. Popham v. United States, 5 Cir., 11 F.2d 966. The defendant did not do this here. While he did make a specific objection, the objection he made was to matter in the charge which......