Riddell v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 August 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2877. |
| Citation | 244 F. 695 |
| Parties | RIDDELL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied October 8, 1917.
Clarence L. Reames, U.S. Atty., and John J. Beckman, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Portland, Or.
The plaintiff in error was defendant in the court below to an indictment charging that at a certain time and place within the jurisdiction of the court the defendant, together with one Conway and one Richet, devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud one Mrs. Patsy Doran, and other persons to the grand jurors unknown, and to obtain from them and each of them money and property, which scheme and artifice the indictment alleged to be, in substance, this:
That the defendant, and Conway and Richet, acting personally and as officers of an Oregon corporation, called Oregon Inland Development Company, would falsely and fraudulently pretend represent, promise, and hold out to said Mrs. Doran and other persons to the grand jurors unknown, and to the public generally, that the company was the owner of 40,000 acres of land in Oregon which it and its said officers intended to and would subdivide into 3,086 farms of the following numbers and sizes, to wit, 2,712 farms of 10 acres each, 200 of 20 acres each, 150 of 40 acres each, 20 of 80 acres each, 2 of 160 acres each, one of 320 acres, and one of 640 acres; that the company was the owner of 3,086 town lots in the town site of Klamath Falls, Or., and that the said defendant and his said associates and the said company would sell one farm and one of the town lots for $240, payable $10 down and $10 each month until fully paid, and, further, that the entire 40,000 acres was farm and fruit land of high quality constituting parts of sections 16 and 36, and situate in Baker, Crook Curry, Douglas, Grant, Harney, Jackson, Klamath, Lake, Linn, Lincoln, Malheur, Sherman, Union, Umatilla, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler counties. That the said lands were adjoining and contiguous in many instances to lands then being farmed and planted with fruit trees, and that the lands so pretended to be owned by the company were also fruit and orchard lands. That the said 40,000 acres, and the said 3,086 town lots, were owned in fee by the company, and that any person or persons purchasing under contracts offered for sale by the defendant and his said associates and the said company would receive good title thereto. That deeds to the said 40,000 acres which vested title thereto in the company had theretofore been executed by John Veasen and Lulu Veasen, husband and wife, under date April 25, 1910. That the said scheme and artifice was to be further executed by the said defendant and his said associates and the said company, increasing the price to be paid by the purchasers from $240 to $300 for each tract, and by falsely and fraudulently printing, issuing, circulating, and distributing a certain illustrated booklet entitled, 'Grande Ronde District, Oregon,' which booklet contained, among other things, a pretended map of Union and Wallowa counties, and of portions of Baker county, Or., which map had large portions of those counties identified in red colors. That the defendant and his said associates would and did further falsely and fraudulently pretend and hold out to the persons aforesaid and to the public generally that each of the townships on said map outlined in red contained 10 and 20 acre tracts and farms owned by the company, and were neither mountainous nor swamp lands. That the town lots so represented to be owned by the company were contiguous and adjacent to the town of Klamath Falls and a part of it, and that each of the lots was worth the 'amount of the selling price of the contracts of said company,' whereas, in truth and in fact and as the defendant then and there well knew, the said lots were not contiguous or adjacent to the town of Klamath Falls nor a part thereof, and were not less than a mile and a half distant from the nearest portion of the town, and not less than two miles from its business portion, were not of the value represented, and were and are of little or no value. That in furtherance of the scheme and artifice and as a part and portion thereof the defendant and his said associates would and did cause to be printed, mailed, circulated, and generally distributed large numbers of a certain poster which had written across it in bold red ink 'Grande Ronde District, Oregon,' and which poster had delineated upon it numerous half-tone reproductions of photographs named, labeled, and described by the designations, 'Native Hay Scene on our Land near Promise,' 'Scene on our Land in Baker County, Note the Deep Soil on Creek Bank,' 'Trout Stream Crossing One Corner of our 20-Acre Tract Southeast of Elgin,' 'Scene on our Land West of La Grande,' 'Part of our Land Near Enterprise,' 'Part of our Land Near North Powder,' 'Part of our Land in Baker County Showing Creek,' 'Scene on One of our 40-Acre Tracts Near Imbler,' 'Part of our Land Near La Grande, Note the Gentle Slope,' which statements, labels, legends, and delineations were false, fraudulent, misleading and untrue in every part as he, the said defendant, then and there well knew, and when, in truth and in fact, as the said defendant then and there well knew, the said company did not own or have any lands in either Baker or Wallowa county, Or., and when in truth and in fact, and as the said defendant then and there well knew, the cut and reproduction labeled 'Native Hay Scene on our Land Near Promise' was not a reproduction of a scene on any land owned by said company, and when in truth and in fact, and as the said defendant well knew, the said company had and owned no lands near Promise, with similar allegations respecting the other labels and designations, and when in truth and in fact, as he, the defendant, then and there well knew, the said company was not the owner of 40,000 acres of farm land in the state of Oregon, nor of 3,086 town lots in the town site of Klamath Falls, Or., and when in truth and in fact, as the defendant then and there well knew, the said 40,000 acres of land so claimed to be owned by the company was not only not farm or fruit land of high quality, but was 'high, bleak, cold, rocky, nonarable, nontillable, scab, and mountainous land fit only for use as grazing land, and totally unfit for orchard culture and cultivation. ' That the lands contiguous to and adjoining the said 40,000 acres so claimed by the said company were not, as the defendant well knew, capable of being farmed or planted with fruit trees, and that in truth and in fact, as the defendant then and there well knew, the deeds so claimed to be executed by said John Veasen and Lulu Veasen did not vest title to the lands therein described in the said company, for the reason that the said deeds were to be placed in escrow and were never delivered to the said company, or to any representative thereof. That in truth and in fact the said company owned and owns, as the said defendant then and there well knew, no lands in either Baker or Wallowa counties, Or., and owned lands in but six of the said townships so designated in red, and when in truth and in fact, and as the said defendant then and there well knew, the said 10 and 20 acre tracts advertised for sale in and by the circular and pamphlet entitled 'Grande Ronde District, Oregon,' were not only not orchard lands of high grade and quality, but were 'high, bleak, rough, rocky, frosty, nonarable, nontillable, and inaccessible mountainous lands. ' That the said scheme and artifice was made and entered into by the defendant and the said Conway and Richet to defraud the said Mrs. Doran and other persons to the grand jurors unknown and the public generally. That in pursuance of it the indictment alleges in count 3, at a time and place stated, the defendant knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously placed and caused to be placed in the post office at Portland, Or., for mailing and delivery, a certain letter reading as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v. United States
...defrauded other persons by means of a similar scheme was admissible where limited to the question of intent. See, also, Riddell v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F. 695; Hallowell v. United States, 9 Cir., 253 F. In Samuels v. United States, 232 F. 536, 542, 146 C.C.A. 494, 500, Ann.Cas.1917A, ......
-
Morris v. United States, 9092.
...849-854, 67 C.C.A. 21; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16; People v. Harris, 136 N.Y. 423, 33 N.E. 65-74." See, also, Riddell v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F. 695; Samuels v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 536, 146 C.C.A. 494, Ann.Cas.1917A, 711; Tincher v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d ......
-
Bowles v. Jung
...See: Schultz v. United States, 8 Cir. 1912, 200 F. 234; Kinser v. United States, 8 Cir. 1916, 231 F. 856, 860; Riddell v. United States, 9 Cir. 1917, 244 F. 695, 700, 701; Davis v. United States, 8 Cir. 1925, 9 F.2d 826, 830; Morris v. United States, 5 Cir. 1940, 112 F.2d 522; Brickey v. Un......
-
United States v. Ball
... ... 726, 139 C.C.A. 256, ... also relied upon by government's counsel, an examination ... of the indictment there set out shows that in three places in ... the indictment it is alleged that the defendants well knew ... that the facts stated by them were not true ... In ... Riddell v. United States, 244 F. 695, 157 C.C.A ... 143, also cited by government's counsel, the indictment, ... which is reported at length in the opinion, contains the ... allegation as follows: ... 'Whereas, ... in truth and in fact, and as the defendant then and there ... well knew the ... ...