United States v. Rhea, Cr. A. No. 5765.

Citation199 F. Supp. 301
Decision Date22 November 1961
Docket NumberCr. A. No. 5765.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Conway RHEA, Walter Lee Roberts, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

Charles W. Atkinson, U. S. Atty., James Gutensohn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff.

Bradley D. Jesson of Hardin, Barton & Hardin, Ft. Smith, Ark., for defendants.

JOHN E. MILLER, Chief Judge.

On November 17, 1961, Mr. Bradley D. Jesson, a competent and reputable attorney of the Bar of this Court, was appointed by the court to represent the defendants in the above-entitled cause. The defendants, after conference with Mr. Jesson, waived the return of an indictment and consented that an information be filed, which was done. After the filing of the information, the defendants, through their attorney, moved that arraignment be postponed in order that they might challenge the sufficiency of the information to charge an offense. On November 21 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the information and alleged that "the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States." Contemporaneously with the filing of the motion, Mr. Jesson submitted to the court a memorandum in support thereof, which memorandum and the authorities therein cited have been considered, and the motion is now ready for determination.

The information charges that the defendants "with unlawful and fraudulent intent, did transport in interstate commerce from Tumwater, Washington, to Fort Smith, Arkansas, a stolen credit card, to-wit: Texaco National Credit Card, Number 72 436 3445 3, issued to Walter C. Jacobs, 417 F Street, Tumwater, Washington, which had been used and intended to be used in the falsely making, forging and altering of a credit purchase in the amount of $31.50 at the Womack Texaco Station, 2015 Rogers Avenue, Fort Smith, Arkansas, to Walter C. Jacobs, 417 F street, Tumwater, Washington, signed Walter C. Jacobs, by the said Samuel Conway Rhea and Walter Lee Roberts, knowing the same to have been fraudulently and falsely made, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314."

It will be observed that the information is based upon the third paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, which reads as follows:

"Whoever, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transports in interstate or foreign commerce, any tool, implement, or thing used or fitted to be used in falsely making, forging, altering, or counterfeiting any security, or any part thereof * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than ten years, or both."

The "thing" that is charged to have been transported in interstate commerce is the credit card described in the information, and it is charged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lewis v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 20, 1962
    ...possessed by the seller, who expected to be paid upon the surrender of the charge slip. The unreported decision in United States v. Rhea, W.D.Ark., D.C., 199 F. Supp. 301, denied a motion to dismiss an information charging the transportation of a stolen credit card used and intended to be u......
  • United States v. Crouch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • January 9, 1964
    ...of indebtedness possessed by the vendor and that he is paid when he surrenders the slip to the issuer of the credit card. In United States v. Rhea, 199 F.Supp. 301 (W.D.Ark. Smith Div. 1961) the view was expressed that the charge slip is evidence in the hands of the credit card issuer of it......
  • Beam v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 3, 1966
    ...Ingling v. United States, 303 F.2d 302 (C.A. 9, 1962); Williams v. United States, 192 F.Supp. 97 (S.D.Cal., 1961); United States v. Rhea, 199 F.Supp. 301 (W.D.Ark., 1961); United States v. Mingo, 217 F.Supp. 729 (M.D.Fla., 1963). Recently this same problem has been considered by Judge Willi......
  • United States v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • November 14, 1962
    ...the provisions of Section 2314". The Government relies on Williams v. United States, (S.D.Cal.1961) 192 F.Supp. 97,3 United States v. Rhea, (W.D.Ark.1961) 199 F. Supp. 301, and Lewis v. United States, (10th Cir., 1962) 301 F.2d 787. And finally the Government suggests that "apparently the s......
  • 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