Schultz v. United States, 3,582.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation200 F. 234
Decision Date21 October 1912
Docket Number3,582.
PartiesSCHULTZ v. UNITED STATES.

200 F. 234

SCHULTZ
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 3,582.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October 21, 1912


P. C. Young, of Fredonia, Kan., for plaintiff in error.

McCabe Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Harry J. Bone, U.S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for the United States.

Before ADAMS and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REED, District Judge. [200 F. 235]

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Mel Schultz, hereafter called the defendant, was indicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. The indictment was in three counts. The first charged him with altering a silver certificate with intent to defraud C. C. McHenry. The second charged him with altering a silver certificate with intent to defraud divers persons. Upon these counts he was found not guilty. The third count was as follows:

'And the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further find and present that at the county of Greenwood in the said division of said district, and within the jurisdiction of this court, on or about the 6th day of August, 1908, one Mel Schultz, then and there being, did then and there, with intent to defraud one C. C. McHenry willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously pass utter, and publish to and upon said C. C. McHenry a certain genuine $1 United States silver certificate, then and there being unlawfully and feloniously altered by having pasted thereon the figure 1 on each of the four places on the face thereof where said figure appeared, the figure 5, so as to make said instrument read and appear as a $5 United States silver certificate, with intent then and there and thereby unlawfully and feloniously to pass, utter, and publish said instrument to and upon said C. C. McHenry, as a genuine $5 United States silver certificate, the said genuine $1 silver certificate then and there being a valid obligation and security of the United States, he, the said Mel Schultz, then and there knowing the same to be falsely altered as above set forth, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'

Upon this count he was found guilty, was sentenced to a year and a day in the Leavenworth penitentiary and a fine of $500, and to pay the costs, and to stand committed until such fine and costs are paid.

Charles Copenhaver, 16 years of age, testified: That he was in a photograph car occupied by the defendant the last of June, 1908, and saw the defendant in company with Elmer Cale. Cale asked him to go up town and buy some ink, which he did, and when he returned he found the defendant and Cale pasting the figure 5 over the figure 1 on a dollar silver certificate. That they told him they wanted ink to use in connection with this work. C. C. McHenry testified: That on July 4, 1908, he was keeping a stand in front of the store of Robert Robertson at Severy, Kan., during a celebration. The defendant and Elmer Cale came to his stand to make a purchase, probably of cigars, and handed to him a $5 bill. He took it back to Mr. Robertson to get it changed, and when the latter took the bill one of the 5's came loose. Mr. Robertson and the witness went back to the stand, and the witness said to the defendant that the bill had been raised, and he better put it in his pocket, or it might get him into trouble. On cross-examination he was asked if defendant did not say:

'That is not the bill I gave you. The bill I gave you was a good one. If this is not good, I know where I got it, and will make the fellow come across.'

And if Elmer Cale did not say:

'Did you examine the bill you got in the crap game?'

And the defendant said: 'No.' Mr. Robertson was asked substantially the same questions. The government then called C. C. Cline, who testified: That at Fredonia, Kan., on August 6th, at the [200 F. 236] county fair, he was keeping a stand, and that about 9 o'clock p.m., Clarence Cass came to his stand, accompanied by the defendant. Cass called for some tobacco, and handed him what appeared to be a $5 bill. He took it, and holding it up toward the light, found that he could not see through the figures 5. He handed it back to Cass, and told him that it was not good. Cass left the stand, did not take the tobacco, and went off in company with the defendant.

This and similar evidence by other witnesses was objected to by the defendant, and overruled, and he excepted. A motion to strike such evidence was made, and the question of the admissibility of it was raised in divers ways.

As clearly foreshadowed prior to the introduction of this testimony, defendant subsequently called Elmer Cale, who testified that the defendant was in a crap game, and got the bill in part for his winnings, and that he was with the defendant at the time the bill was passed, and heard defendant say:

'That is not the bill I gave you. The one I gave you was good.'

And:

'If it is not good, I know where I got it, and will make the fellow come across.'

If this incident in fact took place, it was clearly part of the res gestae and was admissible. The defendant himself testified to the same state of affairs.

As the crime with which the defendant was charged took place on July 4th, he insists that evidence of his conduct in company with Cass on August 6th thereafter would not be admissible against him. Ordinarily the commission of one crime, in and of itself, has no legitimate tendency to prove the commission of another crime; but in Wood v. United States, 16...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Stassi v. United States, No. 9086.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 8 Junio 1931
    ...F. 833, 834 (6 C. C. A.). Limiting the application of evidence, as to one defendant, or to a particular purpose, Schultz v. United States, 200 F. 234, 239 (8 C. C. A.); Moffatt v. United States, 232 F. 522, 534 (8 C. C. A.); Schonfeld v. United States, 277 F. 934, 937 (2 C. C. A.); Silkwort......
  • Witters v. United States, No. 7295.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 27 Junio 1939
    ...People v. Zimmerman, 11 Cal.App. 115, 104 P. 590. See Holt v. United States, 6 Cir., 42 F.2d 103, 106; Schultz v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 234; Moffatt v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 522, 533; United States v. Snyder, C.C.Minn., 14 F. 12 See Burge v. United States, 26 App. D.C. 524, ......
  • Troutman v. United States, No. 1671
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 Enero 1939
    ...such a requested instruction there is no basis for complaint. Ball v. United States, 9 Cir., 147 F. 32; Schultz v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 234; Moffatt v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 522; People v. Haydon, 18 Cal.App. 543, 123 P. 1102, 1114; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 Mo. 71, 205 S.W.......
  • Bowles v. Jung, Civil Action No. 3475.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 21 Noviembre 1944
    ...offenses in which motive, knowledge, wilfulness or specific intent are elements to be proved. 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Stassi v. United States, No. 9086.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 8 Junio 1931
    ...F. 833, 834 (6 C. C. A.). Limiting the application of evidence, as to one defendant, or to a particular purpose, Schultz v. United States, 200 F. 234, 239 (8 C. C. A.); Moffatt v. United States, 232 F. 522, 534 (8 C. C. A.); Schonfeld v. United States, 277 F. 934, 937 (2 C. C. A.); Silkwort......
  • Witters v. United States, No. 7295.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 27 Junio 1939
    ...People v. Zimmerman, 11 Cal.App. 115, 104 P. 590. See Holt v. United States, 6 Cir., 42 F.2d 103, 106; Schultz v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 234; Moffatt v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 522, 533; United States v. Snyder, C.C.Minn., 14 F. 12 See Burge v. United States, 26 App. D.C. 524, ......
  • Troutman v. United States, No. 1671
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 Enero 1939
    ...such a requested instruction there is no basis for complaint. Ball v. United States, 9 Cir., 147 F. 32; Schultz v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 234; Moffatt v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 522; People v. Haydon, 18 Cal.App. 543, 123 P. 1102, 1114; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 Mo. 71, 205 S.W.......
  • Bowles v. Jung, Civil Action No. 3475.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 21 Noviembre 1944
    ...offenses in which motive, knowledge, wilfulness or specific intent are elements to be proved. 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......
  • 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