Tredwell v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 April 1920
• Docket Number: 1765.
• Citation: 266 F. 350
• Parties: TREDWELL v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

266 F. 350

TREDWELL v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1765.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 6, 1920

Harry K. Wolcott, of Norfolk, Va. (H. L. Lowry and Wolcott Wolcott, Lankford & Kear, all of Norfolk, Va., on the brief) for plaintiff in error.

Hiram M. Smith, U.S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., for the United States.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.

KNAPP Circuit Judge.

In an indictment containing 31 counts the above-named plaintiff in error, herein referred to as defendant, was charged with stealing, at various times stated, a large quantity of nitrate of soda belonging to the United States. At the trial and after the evidence was all in, the prosecution of 12 counts was abandoned, with the consent of the court; on the remaining counts a general verdict of guilty was returned by the jury.

The assignments of error present but two questions. It is argued in the first place that the court should have sustained a demurrer to the indictment, on the ground that in none of the counts was the property alleged to have been stolen described with such certainty as to inform defendant of the precise charge he was called upon to meet, or to protect him from subsequent prosecution for the same offense. We are unable to sustain the contention. Each count of the indictment is in the ordinary form of an indictment for larceny. It sets out the time and place of the alleged theft, the kind of property taken, the amount of the same, and its value; and this we think was sufficient. Indeed, the brief of defendant fails to indicate in what manner, or by what terms of identification the property in question might have been more accurately described. The character of the transactions in which defendant engaged, and the numerous acts of wrongdoing of which he was accused, entitled him, as may be conceded, to a bill of particulars, which was furnished, showing that the nitrate was contained in bags, that it came to Norfolk in certain vessels, was imported by certain importers, and loaded upon certain cars; but the absence of these particulars did not make the indictment defective, since each count contained a sufficient charge of larceny. The demurrer was properly overruled.

The other question is based on the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for defendant; the contention being that the government failed to prove a case of larceny, though it may have proved a case of embezzlement. The facts in this connection are briefly these:

In the summer and fall of 1918 the United States was importing large quantities of nitrate of soda from Chile through the port of Norfolk, Va., for use in various munition factories. This nitrate came by vessel to Norfolk, where it was unloaded and placed in cars on the tracks of the Norfolk & Western Railway. The contractors engaged to perform the transportation service employed defendant, who was a stevedore, to unload the nitrate from the vessels, reload it into the cars, and bill the cars to the munition plants as directed by the Ordnance Department. What the defendant...