United States v. Dexter

Decision Date02 July 1907
Docket Number918.
Citation154 F. 890
PartiesUNITED STATES v. DEXTER.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

F. F Faville, U.S. Atty., and J. A. Rogers, Asst. U.S. Atty.

E. V Swetting, for defendant.

REED District Judge (charging jury).

The defendant, A. Ira Dexter, is charged by this indictment with having devised a scheme or artifice to defraud, to be effected by means of the post office establishment of the United States.

Section 5480 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp St. 1901, p. 3696), as amended, so far as material to the matters charged in this indictment, is as follows:

'If any person having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, * * * to be effected by either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with any person, whether resident within or outside of the United States, by means of the post office establishment of the United States, or by inciting such other person or any person to open communication with the person so devising or intending, shall, in and for executing such scheme or artifice or attempting to so do place or cause to be placed, any letter, packet, writing, circular, pamphlet, or advertisement in any post office, branch post office, or street or hotel letter box of the United States, to be sent or delivered by the said post office establishment, or shall take or receive any such therefrom, such person so mis-using the post office establishment, shall upon conviction be punishable,' as prescribed in the section.

And offenses to the number of three, if committed within the same six calendar months, may be charged in the same indictment.

You will observe, gentlemen, that this section provides, in substance, that if any person shall devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, intending to effect the same by means of the post office establishment of the United States, and shall deposit or cause to be deposited any letter, packet, paper writing, or circular in the United States mails, or shall incite another to open correspondence with him through the mails, or receive any such letter, packet, paper, writing, or circular from the mails in execution of such scheme, then he is guilty of a violation of this section. The indictment against this defendant, upon which he is being tried, is founded upon this section of the Revised Statutes, and is in three counts. Count 1 charges, in substance: That defendant in October, 1906, within the jurisdiction of this court, did devise a certain scheme and artifice to defraud one Phillip Ehret (and other persons to the grand jurors unknown) of large sums of money, to be effected by opening correspondence and communication with said Phillip Ehret (and said other persons) by means of the post office establishment of the United States, which contemplated use of said post office establishment was a part of said scheme, and which said scheme and artifice was in substance as follows: That defendant in October, 1906, falsely and fraudulently represented and pretended to said Phillip Ehret that a company described and called by the defendant as the 'National Land Company of Algona, Iowa,' was engaged in securing lists of lands from the owners thereof, and procuring purchasers for and selling lands for the owners upon commission. That defendant was procuring lists of lands for said National Land Company, and that the company for its services in procuring purchasers for and selling the lands so listed with it would charge a commission of one dollar per acre; said commission to be paid to it only in the event that it found a purchaser for, and effected a sale of, the land listed with it. That said land company would in a few days send to said Phillip Ehret an application or instrument in writing, which when signed and returned by said Ehret to the company would authorize said land company to sell the land of Ehret so listed with defendant, and to be described in said writing, at a price to be named therein; and that in the event only that said company would effect a sale of the land, Mr. Ehret or person signing the writing was then to pay said National Land Company a commission of one dollar an acre for effecting such sale. It is then charged that in fact there was no such firm, company, or corporation as the 'National Land Company of Algona.' That said name was a fictitious one only, and was used by defendant as a part of said scheme or artifice to defraud said Ehret, or other persons who might sign the writing to be sent them by defendant in the name of said National Land Company. That said land company was not engaged in the real estate business or in selling land upon commission, and that the defendant or said land company did not intend to sell the land of said Phillip Ehret, or other persons who might list lands with said company, but intended only by such scheme and artifice to fraudulently obtain from said Ehret and other persons his and their signatures to, and the delivery to the defendant of, a written agreement, which would provide that the persons signing the same should pay to the National Land Company of Algona, at Algona, Iowa, the sum of one dollar per acre for advertising only, the land of the party or parties signing such instrument, whether the land was sold or not. That defendant intended to effect such scheme and artifice to defraud said Phillip Ehret by opening correspondence and communication with him by means of the post office establishment of the United States, and that defendant did on or about October 13, 1906, in the name of said National Land Company of Algona, in furtherance and execution of said scheme, open correspondence with said Phillip Ehret by depositing or causing to be deposited in the United States post office at Algona, Iowa, the certain writing described and set out in said count of the indictment, inclosed in an envelope stamped with the requisite United States postage stamp, and addressed to said Phillip Ehret at Milford, Iowa, intending that the same should be sent and delivered by means of the post office establishment of the United States. Count 2 is the same as count 1, except that it charges that the person to be defrauded by said scheme or artifice was one Herman F. Peters (and other persons to the grand jury unknown), and that the correspondence and communication with said Peters was opened by defendant in the name of said National Land Company about October 15, 1906, at Algona, Iowa, in the same manner, for the same purpose, and by the same means as alleged in count 1. Count 3 is the same as count 1, except that it charges that the person to be defrauded was one Charles K. Yost (and other persons to the grand jurors unknown), and that the correspondence with said Yost was opened by the defendant in the name of said National Land Company at Algona about September 19, 1906, in the same manner, for the same purpose, and by the same means as alleged in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. O'Neil
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1913
    ...and throw light on the intent with which the particular act was done. (Walsh v. United States, 174 F. 616, 98 C. C. A. 461; United States v. Dexter, 154 F. 890-895; Gesner v. United States, 153 F. 46, 82 C. C. A. 180; Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Pr......
  • State v. Proctor
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1998
    ...or "artifice" to defraud is to form some plan, device or trick to perpetrate the fraud upon another. Id., quoting United States v. Dexter, 154 F. 890, 893, 896 (N.D.Iowa 1907). ¶ 23 In considering a similar challenge to the mail fraud statute, the court in United States v. Coyle, 943 F.2d 4......
  • United States v. Corlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 27, 1942
    ...or that when the artifice was devised the schemers should have worked out all the details of its execution." In United States v. Dexter, D.C.Iowa 1907, 154 F. 890, 896, a "scheme" is defined: "A `scheme' may be said to be a design or plan formed to accomplish some purpose. An `artifice' may......
  • State v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1978
    ...a "Scheme" or "artifice" to defraud is to form some plan, device or trick to perpetrate the fraud upon another. United States v. Dexter, 154 F. 890, 893, 896 (D.C.N.D.Iowa 1907). Appellant mistakenly relies on United States v. McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245 (8th Cir. 1976) for the proposition that ......
  • 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