Samuels v. United States

Decision Date28 February 1916
Docket Number4475.
Citation232 F. 536
PartiesSAMUELS v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Jean Madalene and S. B. Amidon, both of Wichita, Kan. (William W Hooper, of Leavenworth, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Fred Robertson, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Kan. (Francis M Brady, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for the United States.

Before ADAMS and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.

TRIEBER District Judge.

The plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below, was indicted in 11 counts for violations of section 215 of the Penal Code, and, upon a trial having been found guilty on all of the counts, prosecutes this writ of error to obtain a reversal.

There are 108 assignments of error, many of them mere repetitions. The assignments necessary to consider are: (1) The sufficiency of each of the counts in the indictment. (2) The admission of evidence offered by the government, alleged to be incompetent. (3) Rejecting certain evidence offered on behalf of the defendant. (4) Error in refusing a directed verdict of not guilty. (5) Error in limiting the number of witnesses intended to be introduced on behalf of the defendant. (6) Error in limiting counsel in their arguments to 30 minutes for each side. (7) Error in refusing special instructions asked on behalf of the defendant. (8) Errors in the charge of the court to the jury.

The scheme to defraud in each of the counts was the same. They only differ as to the contents of the letters sent through the mails, and the parties to whom they were addressed. The scheme to defraud was described as follows:

'That he, the defendant, advertised in many parts of the United States, in letters, newspapers, printed circulars, and papers, to the effect that he was a scientist, and that by reason of his scientific study and knowledge he was the originator, discoverer, owner, proprietor, and possessor of a wonderful remedy, of great value, to be used in treating many diseases of the human body; that said remedy was a colorless liquid made from a secret formula, which had taken many years of his life to accomplish, and which he alone knew, and kept as a secret; that he advertised himself as Professor H. Samuels, and said remedy was known and advertised by him under the name of 'Prof. H. Samuels Systematic Remedy,' and that, because of the many wonderful cures attributed to his said remedy by those who had used it, he had decided to merge his individual interest into a more active organization, as he was growing old, and his remedy was of such great value to suffering humanity, as claimed by his many patients, that he was unwilling to deny suffering humanity the great benefits which his systematic remedy would bring to many people; that therefore he had placed his secret formula, from which said remedy was made, in the hands of a newly organized company, with a solemn injunction that his work should go on uninterruptedly, and the company upon whom these responsibilities now devolved, and who would henceforth prepare Prof. Samuels Systematic Remedy from his original secret formula, had been organized under the name of the 'Prof. H. Samuels Remedy Company (Not Inc.), ' with headquarters at Wichita, Kan.; that by the said advertising herein mentioned he would invite, incite, solicit, and induce all people suffering with diseases to communicate with and write to said company, and that the Prof. Samuels Remedy Company would continue to prepare said remedy from the original formula, and that under their direction it would be the same preparation as he had theretofore been selling throughout the United States, which had become so well and favorably known in all parts of the Union, by reason of the beneficial use thereof, which would be and was recited and attested to and vouched for by testimonials and statements of many and various persons, in letters, advertisements, and papers which, from time to time, he had and would and did prepare and cause to be made and prepared for distribution, and distribute and cause the same to be distributed to the public generally; that he would and did represent himself to be the only living person who treats through the eye many diseases, viz., cataracts, blindness, granulated lids, sore eyes, fits, eczema, kidney and bladder troubles, catarrh and deafness, heart trouble, asthma, nervous prostration, hay fever, dropsy, tumor, paralysis, epilepsy, neuralgia, goiter, and many other diseases of the human body; that many persons had used this wonderful remedy on complicated diseases, and many other ills of various kinds, and that wonderful and apparently miraculous cures had been performed by said remedy; that complicated diseases and many other ills were banished by dropping said colorless liquid in the eye; that his remedy was based on scientific principles; that he would, by artful, cunning, misleading, and carefully prepared letters and articles and printed statements, deceive those who read them, and induce them to order and buy said Prof. H. Samuels Systematic Remedy, with the belief and understanding that it had cured and would cure the many diseases and ills hereinbefore mentioned, and thereby secure as his victims those who did not understand and know much, if anything, about science and medicine, and its effect; that by testimonials and letters which he had procured from time to time, and which he would procure from time to time, from various persons, and publish and advertise the same to the public generally in newspaper advertisements and circulars, he would and did hold out and represent to the public that he was working wonderful and remarkable cures in such diseases, and did thereby in effect represent that he was working wonderful and remarkable cures in many and various diseases of a serious kind and nature; that his medicine was a wonderful medicine of great therapeutic value, and was a valuable remedy for many diseases; that it was to be used by dropping said liquid medicine in the eye, and having it come in contact with the nerves of the eye, and its curative effects would be conducted by the nerves to the various parts of the human system; that as a part of said scheme he would and did secure the testimonials of persons who claimed themselves to have been cured of some disease by his alleged systematic remedy; that as an additional part of said scheme he would advertise to the public generally that he had deposited two thousand ($2,000) dollars in a bank of Wichita, Kan., and instructed the said bank to pay said two thousand ($2,000) dollars to the first person who would prove the testimonial letters printed in his advertisements were not genuine; that the letters, papers, and advertisements and testimonials herein mentioned are too lengthy, numerous, voluminous, and otherwise unfit to set out herein, and for that reason are not set forth; that he, the said Henry Samuels, designed and intended, by means aforesaid, to cause and induce divers and various persons, residents within the United States, to communicate and open correspondence with him, under the style and address of 'Prof. H. Samuels Remedy Company (Not Inc.), of Wichita, Kan.,' by making them believe that they might be cured or benefited by the use of his said Systematic Remedy, and, having induced and caused said persons to communicate with him as aforesaid, he further designed, by letters and circulars which he would send to said persons, to induce them to send and forward to him, the said Henry Samuels, under the name of Prof. H. Samuels Remedy Company, many and various sums of money, money orders, checks, and property of value, for said pretended Systematic Remedy; that he, the said Henry Samuels, then and there and at all the times herein mentioned, designed and intended to unlawfully and feloniously appropriate and convert said money and property to his own use for personal gain, and to return therefor to said persons his pretended Systematic Remedy for their supposed diseases, which said remedy was of no value.'

The indictment then proceeds to negative all the claims made by him:

That 'he knew that many of the pretenses, promises and statements set forth in said letters, newspapers, and circulars used by him in furtherance of his said scheme and artifice to defraud were false and misleading and deceptive; and he knew that the testimonials were in reality obtained from persons who did not know whether they had been cured or not by said Systematic Remedy-- all of which he, the said Henry Samuels, unlawfully and feloniously did, with the intent then and there to cheat and defraud any and all persons whomsoever might be so induced as aforesaid to become victims of his said scheme and artifice to defraud.'

The indictment then charges that for the purpose of carrying out and executing the scheme and artifice to defraud he did, on certain days named in the indictment, 'with the intent as aforesaid unlawfully and willfully and feloniously place and cause to be placed in the post office establishment of the United States at Wichita, Kan., in said division and district, the same being a part of the post office establishment of the United States, and an authorized depository for mail,' certain letters which were addressed to the parties named in the indictment, and copies of the letters are set out in full. The letters in the first, second, third, and fourth counts are identical, but addressed to different persons and mailed on different days. The letters set out in the fifth, sixth, and eighth counts are identical, and the letters set out in the seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh counts are identical.

In determining the sufficiency of the indictment, each count...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • United States v. Lovely
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 14, 1948
    ...4 Cir., 73 F.2d 778, 780; Tincher v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 18, 20; Lynch v. United States, 4 Cir., 12 F.2d 193; Samuels v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 536, Ann.Cas. 1917A, 711; Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 251 F. 440; Jones v. United States, 9 Cir., 179 F. 584, 585, 610; Willia......
  • Weiss v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 24, 1941
    ...also, Riddell v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F. 695; Hallowell v. United States, 9 Cir., 253 F. 865. In Samuels v. United States, 232 F. 536, 542, 146 C.C.A. 494, 500, Ann.Cas.1917A, 711, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit said: "As the fraudulent intent is one of the materia......
  • State v. Nunn
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1989
    ... ... United States v. Bednar, 728 F.2d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 827, 105 S.Ct. 110, 83 .2d 54 (1984); Butler v. United States, 317 F.2d 249, 257 (8th Cir.1963); Samuels v. United States, 232 F. 536, 543-544 (8th Cir. [Kan.] 1916); State v. Dunkerton, 128 Kan. 374, ... ...
  • U.S. v. Calvert
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 24, 1975
    ...433 F.2d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 1970); Goodman v. United States, supra at 857; King v. United States, supra at 732-733; Samuels v. United States, 232 F. 536, 542 (8th Cir. 1916). Cases in other Circuits are to the same effect. See, e. g., United States v. Mancuso, 444 F.2d 691, 695 (5th Cir. 19......
  • 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