Pruett v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4335.,4335. |
| Citation | 3 F.2d 353 |
| Parties | PRUETT v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
B. F. Curler, of Reno, Nev., for plaintiff in error.
George Springmeyer, U. S. Atty., and Chas. A. Cantwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Reno, Nev., and George A. Whiteley, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Carson City, Nev.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The Act of May 29, 1920, referred to in the indictment (41 Stat. 630 Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10267a), provides:
"That any United States marshal, clerk, receiver, referee, trustee, or other officer of a United States court, or any deputy, assistant, or employee of any such marshal, clerk, receiver, referee, trustee, or other officer who shall, after demand by the party entitled thereto, unlawfully retain or who shall convert to his own use or to the use of another any moneys received for or on account of costs or advance deposits to cover fees, expenses, or costs, deposits for fees or expenses in bankruptcy cases, composition funds or money of bankrupt estates, fees in naturalization matters, or any other money whatever which has come into his hands by virtue of his official relation or by the fact of his official position or employment shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement and shall, where the offense is not otherwise punishable by some statute of the United States, be fined not more than double the value of the money thus retained or converted or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and it shall not be a defense in such a case that the accused person had an interest, contingent or otherwise, in some part of such moneys or of the fund from which they were retained or converted."
The plaintiff in error earnestly insists that the indictment is defective, because it appears on the face thereof that the plaintiff in error was not a trustee in bankruptcy at the time the demand for payment was made, and, further, that if the indictment in fact charges a crime under the Act of May 29, 1920, it nevertheless appears from the testimony that the funds were converted prior to its passage. Whether the indictment is good under the Act of May 29, 1920, we need not inquire, because it is clearly sufficient under section 29 of the Bankruptcy Act (30 Stat. 554 Comp. St. § 9613). The latter section provides:
"A person shall be punished, by imprisonment for a period not to exceed five years, upon conviction of the offense of having knowingly and fraudulently appropriated to his own use, embezzled, spent, or unlawfully transferred any property or secreted or destroyed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Krasn
...on appeal. This is contrary to the rule of this circuit. Forthoffer v. Swope, 103 F.2d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 1939); Pruett v. United States, 3 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1925). Krasn's entire argument is based upon his allegation that there may have been two conspiracies, one before, and the othe......
-
United States v. Waldin, 12276.
...holds that this objection comes too late when presented at this stage. Forthoffer v. Swope, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 707; Pruett v. United States, 9 Cir., 1925, 3 F.2d 353; cf. United States v. Franklin, 7 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d Regardless of timeliness, however, we think the contention has no ......
-
United States v. Albanese, 273-274
...U.S. 675, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610. See also United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788; Pruett v. United States, 9 Cir., 3 F.2d 353; Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 602, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 3. Before trial, the defendants made a motion to dismiss tw......
-
Forthoffer v. Swope
...2157, p. 597. The defense is available on appeal, but cannot be considered on appeal where not urged in the trial court. Pruett v. United States, 9 Cir., 3 F.2d 353, 354. The plea of the statute of limitation was not brought to the attention of the District Court which sentenced Forthoffer ......