United States v. Housing Foundation of America, No. 9712

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMARIS, GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit
Citation176 F.2d 665
PartiesUNITED STATES v. HOUSING FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, Inc. et al. (two cases).
Docket NumberNo. 9712,9737.
Decision Date11 August 1949

176 F.2d 665 (1949)

UNITED STATES
v.
HOUSING FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, Inc. et al. (two cases).

Nos. 9712, 9737.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued July 5, 1949.

Decided August 11, 1949.


Gustave A. Gerber, New York City, Daniel H. Jenkins, Scranton, Pa., for appellants.

Arthur A. Maguire, Scranton, Pa., for appellee.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

The appellant Westfield, the corporate defendant and one T. William Smith were convicted of using the mails to defraud. 18 U.S.C.A. § 338 now § 1341. That there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction, there is not the slightest doubt. The recital of the events surrounding the venture sounds like one of the stories concerning J. Rufus Wallingford, current in popular fiction a number of years ago. There is testimony which, if believed (and one could hardly help believing most of it) indicated that defendant Westfield came into Wilkes-Barre, Pa., with no money whatever, but only big talk and the ability to get people to do what he wanted them to do. He drew local citizens into his enterprise: a local real estate man, a local lawyer, the proprietors of a barber shop and beauty parlor, and several others. He proceeded to publish advertisements concerning prefabricated houses, offering them for sale at a low price and accepting, through the defendant corporation, something more than $150,000 in down payments. The deposits were not returned. Only about five houses were ever delivered, and these in an unfinished condition at a price more than that advertised.

The jury found the individual defendants, Westfield and Smith, and the corporate defendant guilty on several counts. The trial was a long one. An examination of the testimony reveals nothing which could possibly be the basis for reversal except that which is about to be noted.

At the beginning of the defendants' case counsel for the individual defendant Smith called to the stand the other individual defendant Westfield. He proceeded to examine him about Westfield's relationship with Smith and the corporation by whom Smith was at one time employed. All this was done over the objection and continued objection of counsel for Westfield. The record of examination begins on page 810 of the transcript and continues until page

176 F.2d 666
824. At that point the Trial Judge, following a recess, had looked up the statute and said to the jury: "Congress has passed an Act which reads as follows: (Title 28 Section 632 see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, 18...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 22, 1972
    ...v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892). See generally United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F.2d 665 (3d Cir. 1949). There was some evidence linking each defendant to the conspiracy. See United States v. Cohen, 197 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1952). Thus the ......
  • People v. Hardy, Nos. S004607
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 12, 1992
    ...trial. (E.g., Coleman v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 420 F.2d 616, 625; United States v. Housing Foundation of America (3d Cir.1949) 176 F.2d 665, 666.) Compulsion directly violates the In Griffin, the United States Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination privilege prohibits any com......
  • Saranchak v. Beard, CIVIL NO. 1:05-CV-0317
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • April 24, 2012
    ...him. Roach v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 804 F.2d 1147, 1151 (10 Cir. 1986). See, e.g., United States v. Housing Found. of America, 176 F.2d 665, 666 (3d Cir. 1949). As related to the second protection, the witness' privilege against self-incrimination "not only protects the individual ......
  • United States v. Marquez, No. 70 Cr. 113.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 4, 1970
    ...to defendants Natarelli and Randaccio, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969); United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F.2d 665, 666 (3d Cir. 3 On his present motion, movant makes no suggestion, as he did on his last, that it may be necessary to call his codefendants......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 22, 1972
    ...v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892). See generally United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F.2d 665 (3d Cir. 1949). There was some evidence linking each defendant to the conspiracy. See United States v. Cohen, 197 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1952). Thus the ......
  • People v. Hardy, Nos. S004607
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 12, 1992
    ...trial. (E.g., Coleman v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 420 F.2d 616, 625; United States v. Housing Foundation of America (3d Cir.1949) 176 F.2d 665, 666.) Compulsion directly violates the In Griffin, the United States Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination privilege prohibits any com......
  • Saranchak v. Beard, CIVIL NO. 1:05-CV-0317
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • April 24, 2012
    ...him. Roach v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 804 F.2d 1147, 1151 (10 Cir. 1986). See, e.g., United States v. Housing Found. of America, 176 F.2d 665, 666 (3d Cir. 1949). As related to the second protection, the witness' privilege against self-incrimination "not only protects the individual again......
  • United States v. Marquez, No. 70 Cr. 113.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 4, 1970
    ...to defendants Natarelli and Randaccio, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969); United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F.2d 665, 666 (3d Cir. 3 On his present motion, movant makes no suggestion, as he did on his last, that it may be necessary to call his codefendants......
  • 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