United States v. Aaron, No. A-6640 and A-6642.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
Citation117 F. Supp. 952
Docket NumberNo. A-6640 and A-6642.
Decision Date29 December 1953
PartiesUNITED STATES v. AARON. UNITED STATES v. BRIDWELL et al.

117 F. Supp. 952

UNITED STATES
v.
AARON.

UNITED STATES
v.
BRIDWELL et al.

No. A-6640 and A-6642.

United States District Court, N. D. West Virginia, Fairmont Division.

December 29, 1953.


117 F. Supp. 953

Howard Caplan, U. S. Atty., Clarksburg, W. Va., Milford Gibson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kingwood, W. Va., and Roderick A. Devison, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairmont, W. Va., for plaintiff.

Carl G. Bachmann, Wheeling, W. Va., Louis D. Meisel, Fairmont, W. Va., S. D. Lopinsky and Philip Angel, Charleston, W. Va., for Albert A. Aaron.

C. W. Moxley and W. M. Drennan, of Charleston, W. Va., for Robert H. Bridwell and Louise Bridwell.

WATKINS, District Judge.

The defendants in both of the above cases were indicted in September, 1953, in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, for the violation of Section 145(b) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b).

The charges in both indictments are substantially the same, and charge in effect that the defendants "did willfully and knowingly attempt to defeat and evade a large part of the income tax due and owing * * * to the United States of America * * * by filing and causing to be filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue Collection District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg, West Virginia, a false and fraudulent income tax return."

The defendants have filed two motions, one asking that the particular case be transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Rule 21(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and the other motion asking for a bill of particulars. Counsel have stated that the latter motion for a bill of particulars is made in aid of the first motion to transfer. The motion for bill of particulars asks the government to state where the defendants resided at the time the returns were filed, and where the income tax returns were executed and placed in the mail.

The defendants claim that the offenses charged in the indictments were committed in both the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia and

117 F. Supp. 954
can be transferred to the Southern District for trial under Rule 21(b). The government says the indictments charge a single act, filing at one place, Parkersburg, with a designated official, the Collector of Internal Revenue, and that the offense of filing at Parkersburg was committed wholly within the Northern District of West Virginia where the City of Parkersburg is located. I think the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Reynolds v. United States, No. 15284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1955
    ...that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the making of false records a......
  • United States v. Foster, Crim. No. 25463.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • August 30, 1961
    ...Judge Chesnut's opinion in Warring, supra, and of Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772, 774, United States v. Aaron, N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Miller in United States v. United States District Court, 6 Cir., 209 F.2d 575, 577, it is not certain......
  • Beaty v. United States, No. 6760.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 14, 1954
    ...that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F.Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the making of false records a......
  • State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court In and For Pima County, No. 2
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • June 12, 1970
    ...however, is not the equivalent of 'filing'. Harper v. Borden Company, 129 So.2d 330 (La.App.1961); United States v. Aaron, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 952 (1953); Kahler-Ellis Company v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 6 Cir., 225 F.2d 922 (1955). The pending appeal, therefore, should have been In so holdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Reynolds v. United States, No. 15284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1955
    ...that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the making of false records a......
  • United States v. Foster, Crim. No. 25463.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • August 30, 1961
    ...Judge Chesnut's opinion in Warring, supra, and of Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772, 774, United States v. Aaron, N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Miller in United States v. United States District Court, 6 Cir., 209 F.2d 575, 577, it is not certain......
  • Beaty v. United States, No. 6760.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 14, 1954
    ...that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F.Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the making of false records a......
  • State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court In and For Pima County, No. 2
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • June 12, 1970
    ...however, is not the equivalent of 'filing'. Harper v. Borden Company, 129 So.2d 330 (La.App.1961); United States v. Aaron, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 952 (1953); Kahler-Ellis Company v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 6 Cir., 225 F.2d 922 (1955). The pending appeal, therefore, should have been In so holdi......
  • 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