United States v. McConnell

Decision Date02 January 1923
Docket Number55.
Citation285 F. 164
PartiesUNITED STATES v. McCONNELL et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

John Robert Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., and George W. Coles, U.S Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa.

Joseph H. Reich, of Pittsburgh, Pa., William A. Gray, Joseph Willing, John W. Crolly, and J. Washington Logue, all of Philadelphia, Pa Smith & Reilly, of Newark, N. J., Benjamin Lencher, of Pittsburgh, Pa., E. D. Brown and H. S. Dumbauld, both of Uniontown, Pa., David A. Rahilly, of Philadelphia, Pa Thomas F. Farrel, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Robert J. Sterrett of Philadelphia, Pa., Bernard B. McGinnis, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Abraham Salsburg, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Oscar R. Cummins, of Johnstown, Pa., Ralph C. Davis and Mortimer B. Lesher, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., Henry W. Braude and Chas. D. McAvoy, both of Philadelphia, Pa., Fred B. Moser, of Shamokin, Pa., George Russell, of Philadelphia, Pa., E. Lowry Humes and Mayer Sniderman, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., John Dando, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Joseph H. Lieberman, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Andrew Hourigan, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for defendants.

THOMPSON District Judge.

The indictment charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States by the unlawful issuance of permits to purchase liquor in amounts and character other than those to which the permittee was lawfully entitled, to persons not permittees, and in the names of permittees who had not made applications or applied for permits, and at offices of the Director of Prohibition, where the records of permittees were not on file. The indictment sets out that the 47 defendants named conspired to defraud the United States in issuing and causing to be issued fraudulent permits by McConnell, Prohibition Director, and prohibition agents in charge of the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh offices, to be used by others in obtaining liquor from vendors for unlawful sale, delivery, and transportation. A widespread conspiracy is charged, of which McConnell, the Federal Prohibition Director for Pennsylvania, is made the head, with, as subheads, Wolfe, the prohibition agent in charge of the Pittsburgh office, Slater, prohibition agent and secretary to the Director, and Benner, prohibition agent, both of the latter of the Philadelphia office, and all three having the power of approving applications for permits, and Wolfe and Slater having authority to sign the Director's name and issue permits for their respective localities.

The conspiracy was to be accomplished through subgroups. The fraudulent permits were to be issued by McConnell, Slater and Benner, to Singer, Blumberg, and others, who were to use them in the purchase and withdrawal of liquor, were to cause it to be transported, and were to sell and deliver it to Bookbinder, McCarter, and others. They were to be issued by McConnell and Wolfe to Robin and others, who were to use them in the purchase and withdrawal of liquor, were to cause it to be transported, and were to sell and deliver it to persons unknown. They were to be issued by McConnell and Wolfe to Branagan and Gottfried and others, who were to use them in the purchase and withdrawal of liquor, were to cause it to be transported, and were to sell and deliver it to persons unknown. They were to be issued by McConnell, Slater, and Benner to Smith, Kearns, and others, who were to use them in the purchase and withdrawal of liquor, were to cause it to be transported, and were to sell and deliver it to persons unknown. The indictment then sets out overt acts by Wolfe, Benner, and Slater in connection with the issuing and signing of permits, and by Singer and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1941
    ...proved or whether a number of separate conspiracies were proved was a question for the jury under proper instructions. United States v. McConnell, D.C., 285 F. 164, 167. jury could reasonably have found from the evidence the following facts: The main purpose of the conspiracy was to defraud......
  • State v. Erwin
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1941
    ... ... in defense of another prosecution for the same offense. See ... [120 P.2d 294] ... States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed ... 588; United States v. Hess , 124 U.S. 483, 8 ... end split up a conspiracy into several different ... conspiracies. United States v. McConnell ... (D. C.) 285 F. 164; Wilson v. United ... States , [2 Cir], 190 F. 427." ... ...
  • United States v. Rosenberg
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 25, 1952
    ...end" is in contradistinction to the "separate ends similar in character" which characterize multiple conspiracies. United States v. McConnell, D.C.E.D.Pa., 285 F. 164, 166. Thus the Supreme Court has said that defendants who separately secure fraudulent loans through banking institutions fr......
  • United States v. Atlantic Commission Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • May 14, 1942
    ...F.2d 711, 717; Schwartzberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 241 F. 348, 352; Capriola v. United States, 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 5, 9; United States v. McConnell, D.C., 285 F. 164, 167; United States v. Direct Sales Co., D.C.S.C., 44 F.Supp. 623, filed April 27, 1942. The means and methods described in ea......
  • 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