United States v. Grunberg

• Decision Date: 16 May 1904
• Docket Number: 2,001.
• Citation: 131 F. 137
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GRUNBERG et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

131 F. 137

UNITED STATES v. GRUNBERG et al.

No. 2,001.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 16, 1904

Burdett Wardwell & Snow, for John W. Trafton.

Charles K. Cobb, for James A. Shedd.

C. P Searle, Arthur P. Hardy, and Melvin O. Adams, for William Monroe.

H. N Allen, for Grunberg, Baitler, and Burman.

Henry P. Moulton, U.S. Atty.

The following is the motion to quash the indictment:

Now comes John W. Trafton, one of the defendants in the above-entitled case, and moves to quash the above indictment and each and every count thereof:

First. Because the same nowhere charges him with any offense under the laws of the United States, set forth plainly, formally, and substantially, as required by the laws of criminal pleading.

Second. Because said indictment does not set forth plainly, formally, and substantially, and in such a manner as to reasonably inform the defendant, the nature, character, form, and contents of the alleged false and fraudulent papers to be used pursuant to and in promotion of said conspiracy, as alleged in said indictment.

Third. Because said indictment does not set forth plainly, formally, and substantially, and in such a manner as to reasonably inform the defendant, the nature and details of the alleged conspiracy-- particularly as to what is intended to be charged by the allegation that, as a part of said conspiracy, one or more of the defendants should and would present and cause to be presented, certain false and fraudulent entries.

Fourth. Because that in said indictment, and each and every count thereof, no overt act is alleged, the performance of which would have amounted to or resulted in a defrauding of the United States, so far as appears from the allegations in said indictment.

Fifth. Because in other respects the said indictment is insufficient and void.

Wherefore this defendant prays that the said indictment, and each and every count thereof, may be quashed, and that he may be hence discharged.

PUTNAM Circuit Judge.

On motions to quash, the court accepts only such propositions as raise clear points of law. Any involved question should be raised by demurrer or motion in arrest of judgment, where the court must meet the issues and dispose of them, holding them under consideration if necessary for that purpose; but a motion to quash, being addressed to the discretion of the court, and interposing avoidable delays, unless clearly justified, should be decided on the spot, and therefore our practice as to such motions is as stated.

Except on two propositions, we need only refer to Pettibone v United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 Sup.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419, and Dealy v. United States, 152 U.S. 539, 14 Sup.Ct. 680, 38 L.Ed. 545. In view of the nature of the conspiracy alleged, those cases cover every other point now brought to the attention of the court. It is to be borne in mind, in considering and applying the suggestions of counsel, that the pith of the offense is contained in the first seven or eight lines of the indictment. Six persons, including all who are represented here by the motions to quash, are charged with 'unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and designedly conspiring, combining, confederating, and agreeing to defraud the United States of America of large sums of money, to become due and payable to the United States of America as customs duties accruing upon divers importations of merchandise to be thereafter imported and brought by said Grunberg, Baitler, and Burnham from a foreign country, to wit, from the republic of Switzerland, into the United States of America, to wit, into the port and collection district of Boston and Charlestown, in said district of Massachusetts. ' Every element is here which is necessary to make out to the common understanding an offense. But, according to the settled practice on indictments for conspiracy, whether the means to be employed are in themselves lawful or unlawful, it is not sufficient...