Turner v. United States

• Decision Date: 25 March 1929
• Docket Number: No. 8211.,8211.
• Citation: 32 F.2d 126
• Parties: TURNER v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

32 F.2d 126 (1929)

TURNER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8211.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 25, 1929.

Kendall B. Randolph, of St. Joseph, Mo. (Lewis F. Randolph, and John P. Randolph, both of St. Joseph, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

S. M. Carmean, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Roscoe C. Patterson, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.

Before VAN VALKENBURGH and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.

BOOTH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of violation of section 215, Criminal Code (U. S. C. tit. 18 18 USCA § 338). There were four counts in the indictment. The jury found appellant guilty under the first count. The others were dismissed.

The assignments of error challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, the admission of evidence over the objection of appellant, and the correctness of the ruling of the court in denying a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence.

The ground of the attack on the indictment is that it fails to state facts constituting an offense against the United States. The first count of the indictment alleges, in substance, that George F. Turner (defendant) did unlawfully and knowingly devise a scheme to defraud L. W. Krull and numerous other parties unknown; that is to say, a scheme to defraud said parties of their money without giving or intending to give to said parties anything of an equivalent value or of any value, which said scheme was substantially as follows: That defendant would lease a small tract of ground with improvements near St. Joseph, Mo., and would represent that he was extensively engaged in the hatching and selling of baby chicks; that he owned and operated an extensive hatchery and could and would sell to parties desiring to purchase any number of baby chicks on and after March 12th; that all of his chicks were of pure-bred stock; that defendant, in order to induce persons to purchase from him, would send out postal cards through the United States mail, agreeing to sell baby chicks, for which payment was demanded in advance on the following terms and conditions: (Here follow the offers and the prices.)

The indictment then alleges that the said representations and promises were made by defendant to various parties; that they were false and fraudulent, in that defendant was not engaged in operating extensive chick hatcheries; that he could not and did not intend to deliver chicks at the prices mentioned; and that the chicks he was offering were not pure-bred chicks, and he knew they were not.

The indictment then alleged the mailing by defendant of a postal card in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to L. W. Krull, at Clarksdale, Mo., in and for the execution of the alleged scheme to defraud.

We think the indictment was sufficient. It clearly set out the devising of the scheme to defraud by defendant, the scheme itself, the representations made by defendant, the falsity thereof, the knowledge of defendant that the representations were false, the intent of defendant to defraud, and the use of the United States mail in execution of the scheme.

The indictment met the requisites laid down by this court in numerous cases. Gould v. United States (C. C. A.) 209 F. 730; Mounday v. United States (C. C. A.) 225 F. 965; McClendon v. United States (C. C. A.) 229 F. 523; Gardner v. United States (C. C. A.) 230 F. 575; Chew v. United States (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 348.

The assignment of error touching the admission of testimony does not comply with the requirements...