Yusem v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 September 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3274.,3274. |
| Citation | 8 F.2d 6 |
| Parties | YUSEM v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Harry Shapiro, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., and L. Le Roy Deininger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The writ of error in this case was taken to review a judgment of the District Court in which David R. Yusem, defendant, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of eight months in the Mercer county jail at Trenton, N. J. He was indicted, tried, and convicted for having devised a scheme or artifice to defraud by means of false and fraudulent representations, and for having used the post office establishment for the purpose of executing the scheme, in violation of section 215 of the federal Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10385). His brother, Maurice Yusem, with whom he was engaged in business under the name of Yusem Bros., was indicted and tried with him, but was acquitted by the direction of the court because it appeared that he had nothing to do with devising the scheme or using the mails. The scheme which the defendant is alleged to have devised was the submission through the United States mails of an alleged false and fraudulent statement prepared by him or under his direction to prospective creditors for the purpose of obtaining credit from them. The statement is alleged to be false and fraudulent, in that it represented the net worth of the business of the Yusem Bros. to be larger than it in truth was on February 1, 1922.
The following is a copy of the statement which he sent through the mails to the American Woolen Company and Samuel M. Karon, Inc.:
There is no question as to the accuracy of the list of liabilities. The attack is on the correctness of the assets. The government attempted to establish the incorrectness of the list of assets, given in the statement, from the books. A certified public accountant testified that the statement when compared with the books, contained the following overstatements: $2,388.78 in the accounts receivable; $1,300, equity in real estate in Perkasie; $1,000, equity in real estate in homes (in Philadelphia); and $1,476.93 on building and loan stock. The books do not contain the "merchandise inventory" of $50,801.35 appearing in the statement, but its correctness was admitted, and so is not in dispute. On the other hand, the evidence shows that in some items the figures in the books exceed those in the statement. The difference, however, between them was only $3,732.87, according to the government's evidence, as the following comparison shows:
Value of Value as
Assets Set Out in Per Books
Financial Statement and Records
Merchandise inventory ..... $ 50,801.35 $ 50,801.35
Accounts receivable ....... 48,921.18 46,532.40
Cash on hand — none ....... 1.92
Cash in bank .............. 4,800.00 6,024.04
Machinery and fixtures .... 13,408.00 13,761.42
Factory at Doylestown ..... 5,610.00 6,233.48
Real estate equity in
Perkasie ................ 3,600.00 2,200.00
Real estate, equity in
homes ................... 3,900.00 2,900.00
Building & Loan Association
stock ................... 4,750.00 3,273.00
Fixtures, Philadelphia .... 2,600.00 2,800.00
___________ ___________
Totals ................. $138,390.53 $134,627.66
While the accounts receivable are $2,388.78 more in the statement than in the books, according to the government's evidence, defendant says there are two accounts receivable in the books, one of J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Leitner
...States v. Matsinger, 191 F.2d 1014, 1016 (3 Cir. 1951); Paul v. United States, 79 F.2d 561, 563-564 (3 Cir. 1935); Yusem v. United States, 8 F.2d 6, 8 (3 Cir. 1925); Chicco v. United States, 284 F. 434 (4 Cir. 1922); Riggs v. United States, 280 F.2d 949 (5 Cir. 1960); United States v. Bardi......
-
United States v. Gonzales Castro
...10 Cir., 60 F.2d 700; Lempie v. United States, 9 Cir., 39 F.2d 19, 21; Moore v. United States, 10 Cir., 56 F.2d 794, 796; Yusem v. United States, 3 Cir., 8 F.2d 6, 8; Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 227 F. 855, 857; Union Pacific Coal Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 173 F. 737, 5 I grant tha......
-
Miller v. United States, 2222.
...was sustained and he was not permitted to answer. Intent is an essential element of fraud. 23 Am. Jurisprudence, p. 773; Yusem v. United States, 3 Cir., 8 F.2d 6; Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444, 100 P.2d 65. Whenever the belief of a person or the motive of his act or conduct ......
-
United States v. Maghinang, Cr. A. No. 822.
...Graceffo v. United States, 3 Cir., 1931, 46 F.2d 852, 853; Ridenour v. United States, 3 Cir., 1926, 14 F.2d 888, 892; Yusem v. United States, 3 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 6, 8; Wiener v. United States, 3 Cir., 1922, 282 F. 799, The Government, I conclude, failed to produce sufficient evidence to pr......