United States v. Amster

Decision Date20 April 1921
Citation273 F. 532
PartiesUNITED STATES v. AMSTER et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Leroy W. Ross, U.S. Atty., and Henry J. Walsh, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Brooklyn, N.Y.

Hirson & Bertini, of New York City (Max M. Hirson, of New York City of counsel), for defendant Amster.

CHATFIELD District Judge.

Upon arraignment of the three defendants, one (Isidor Amster) has demurred to the indictment on the ground that it does not sufficiently charge the crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The language of the indictment does not directly, and step by step, detail the entire chain of circumstances, so as to lead up to a plain statement of the conclusion which would define in general terms the precise fraud which the defendants are said to have planned by their conspiracy. The statement of overt acts cannot be used to supply deficiencies in the charge of conspiracy. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 at page 359, 32 Sup.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114, Ann Cas. 1914A, 614. The charging portion of the indictment must define all the necessary elements of the conspiracy, and also all the necessary elements of the acts which are alleged to constitute either an offense under the laws of the United States or a fraud upon the United States. But the defendant cannot, by misinterpreting or assuming according to his own ideas the crime or fraud charged, present successfully a demurrer upon the theory that the indictment fails to set forth all the elements which he thinks are necessary to support the charge which he has in mind.

The present indictment alleges that the defendants planned to defraud the United States, by collusively presenting three false or fraudulent bids, the highest of which was below market price, and at which price the defendant Nullet agreed to let the defendant Amster, who has demurred, have 50,000 pounds of tea from that offered for sale by the Surplus Property Division of the United States Army.

This is not a charge of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, although the presentation of false bids may have constituted an offense against the United States, as to which a conspiracy might also have been charged. Nor is this an indictment for defrauding the United States by failure on the part of Nullet to do his duty by personally carrying out the transaction, and thus consummating a sale at a price at which the United States suffered an actual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. La Fera
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 1961
    ...Public Works and Contracts § 33, p. 774; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U.S. 639, 19 S.Ct. 839, 43 L.Ed. 1117 (1899); United States v. Amster, 273 F. 532 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.1921); Morgan v. Gove, 206 Cal. 627, 275 P. 415, 62 A.L.R. 219 (Sup.Ct.1929); People v. Strauch, 240 Ill. 60, 88 N.E. 155 (Sup.Ct.......
  • Baltimore Talking Bd. Co., Inc. v. Miles
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 1 Junio 1921
    ... ... 531 BALTIMORE TALKING BOARD CO., Inc., v. MILES, Collector of Internal Revenue. No. 954.United States District Court, D. Maryland.June 1, 1921 ... Fisher ... and Fisher, of ... ...

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