United States v. Glory Blouse & Sportswear Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1947
• Docket Number: No. 101,Docket 20377.,101
• Citation: 158 F.2d 880
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GLORY BLOUSE & SPORTSWEAR CO., Inc. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

158 F.2d 880 (1947)

UNITED STATES v. GLORY BLOUSE & SPORTSWEAR CO., Inc. et al.

No. 101, Docket 20377.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 6, 1947.

Milton Maurice Meyer and Davidoff & Meyer, all of New York City (Isaac M. Levinson and Gustave A. de Lemos, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Florence P. Shientag, of New York City, for appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The defendants appeal from a conviction under an indictment in sixteen counts, the first of which was for conspiracy to violate § 925(b) of Title 50 U.S.C.A. War Appendix, i. e., to sell women's blouses at a higher price than that fixed by the maximum price regulations; the next twelve of which were for selling separate parcels of blouses at higher prices than were permitted; and the last three of which were for failing to keep proper books of record, as required by Maximum Price Regulations No. 287 and No. 330, as revised. The only points urged, which have the least importance, are (1.) that the evidence does not support the verdict; and (2.) that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney made a fair trial impossible. The facts as the jury might have found them from the evidence were as follows. In the year 1942, a corporation — whose shares were held by three persons, named Mason, Geist and Nazimowitz — was manufacturing women's clothes in the Borough of Manhattan. Its name was Geist Blouse and Sportswear Co. Inc., which on September 26, 1942, was changed to Glory Blouse and Sportswear Company, Inc.: it is the corporate defendant in this proceeding. During the fall of 1942 Geist sold all his shares in the company to Mason; on June 24, 1943, Mason sold all his shares to the defendant, Sicari; and at some time before September 11, 1944, which the record does not disclose, Sicari had acquired Nazimowitz's shares. During the month of October, 1942, Sicari had already become manager of the business; he was getting a salary of $200 a week, and half the net profits; he was guarantying the corporate loans made by the bank where it kept its money; and his son-in-law was its secretary and treasurer. Before April 1, 1943, his signature was being required upon all corporate cheques by a new bank, to which the corporation had changed its account; and he had begun generally to supervise its purchases at least by the beginning of the year 1943. In March, 1943 the defendant, Onesto (Sicari's "godchild"), and Mason's wife filed a certificate that they would do business as the Jewel Blouse & Sportswear Company; and they in fact did do business, nominally as a jobber for the Glory Company. They had an ostensible office and show room on the same floor of the same building where the Glory Company made the blouses; and, although that company sold to other persons until March, 1944, the Jewel Company was its only jobber thereafter. On June 29th Lazzara (Sicari's brother-in-law) took Mrs. Mason's place, and he and Onesto were the Jewel Blouse & Sportswear Company. All the sales laid in counts two to thirteen inclusive, were made during February, March or April, 1945; and they were all at prices higher than were permissible for the Glory Company.

The defendants argue that the prosecution did not, however, show that these prices were higher than was permissible to the Jewel Company, if that company was a bona fide jobber, and that in fact it was such a jobber. The prosecution met this argument by asserting that the Jewel Company was not a bona fide jobber; but a mere...