Volume 284 — Federal Reporter

<p>8. Post office @=>48(4)&emdash;Indictment held sufficient although naming only eiass of persons intended to be defrauded. An indictment</p> <p>for using the mails in pursuance of a scheme to de- fraud, in violation of Criminal Code, § 215 (Comp. St. § 10385), was not defective, as failing to name the persons intended to be defrauded, where it was alleged a class of persons was intended to be defrauded. 2. Post</p> <p>office @=>35&emdash;Use of the mails need not he for communicating with per» son to be injured. Under Criminal Code, §</p> <p>215 (Comp. St. § 10385), it is an offense if the mailing is in execution of, or by way of, an attempt to execute the fraudu- lent scheme, and it is not necessary that the use of the mails be for com- municating with a person intended to be injured. 3. Post office @=>48(4)&emdash;IntlietmBEit</p> <p>held to sufficiently describe scheme to defraud. In a prosecution under Criminal Code,</p> <p>§ 215 (Comp. St. § 10385), for using the mails in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, the indictment held to sufficiently describe tbe fraudulent scheme, the selling of stock in a practically nonexistent meat packing business. 4. Indictment and information @=>129(1)&emdash;Combining charges</p> <p>of violation of statute with conspiracy counts held proper. In a prosecution under Criminal Code, § 215</p> <p>(Comp. St. § 10385), for using the mails in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, the combining in the indictment of charges of violation of section 215 with conspiracy counts held proper practice. 5. Post office @=n35&emdash;Mailing by one defendant of</p> <p>letter is act of ail defendants. In a prosecution under Criminal Code, § 215 (Comp. St.</p> <p>§ 10385), for using the mails in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, held, that the act of one defendant in mailing a letter in pursuance of the scheme to defraud was the act of all defendants, where all connected with the scheme must have known that the mails would be used in its prosecution. ®s»For other cases see same topic & KBT-NUMBER in all</p> <p>Key-Numbered Digests'& Indexes •Certiorari denied 260 U. S. &emdash;, 43 Sup. Ct. 247,</p> <p>6. Criminal law <@=>1209 — Conviction under conspiracy counts and mail fraud counts held not to involve double penalty.</p> <p>In prosecution for fraudulent use of the mails, with conspiracy counts, held, that conviction under the substantive counts and also under conspiracy counts did not involve a double penalty.</p> <p>7. Post office <@=>49 — Evidence held to sustain conviction for using mails to defraud.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Criminal Code, § 215 (Comp. St. § 10385), for using the mails in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, evidence ox the fraudulent character of the scheme, the selling of stock in a practically nonexistent meat packing business, held sufficient to sustain conviction, although it appeared that a site was actually purchased and a plant was in process of construction.</p> <p>8. Conspiracy <@=>48 — Evidence held sufficient to go to jury.</p> <p>In prosecution for conspiracy under Criminal Code, § 37 (Comp. St. § 10201), to use the mails to carry out a scheme to defraud, evidence as to the conspiracy held sufficient to go to the jury.</p> <p>9. Post office <@=>49 — Evidence held to show participation by defendant in scheme to defraud by use of mails.</p> <p>In prosecution for using the mails to carry out a scheme to defraud, evidence held to show that one of the defendants did not act in a mere clerical capacity, but, with guilty knowledge of the scheme, associated herself with the other defendants in forwarding its object.</p> <p>10. Post office <@=>35 — Defendants liable for fraudulent acts of agent of corporation in use of mails which they centro!.</p> <p>As respects liability for using the mails to carry out $ scheme to defraud, the selling of stock in a practically nonexistent meat packing business, tbe fact that stock salesmen were employed by the corporation rather than defendants as individuals held immaterial, in view, of evidence that the corporation was being used by the defendants in the execution of the alleged scheme.</p> <p>II. Criminal law <@=>622(1)— Granting separate trial held discretionary.</p> <p>In a prosecution for use of the mails to carry out a fraudulent scheme, held, that the trial court’s refusal to grant defendants a separate trial was a matter within its sound discretion.</p> <p>12. Criminal law <@=>854(2) — Permitting separation of jury held within trial court’s discretion.</p> <p>In a prosecution for using the mails to carry out a fraudulent scheme, held, that the separation of the jury during the trial was discretionary; care having been taken to properly caution tbe jury against permitting any outside influences.</p> <p>13. Crimina! law <@=>1044 — Defendants cannot complain that one of the jurors was approached when they did not ask leave to withdraw a juror on that ground.</p> <p>In a prosecution for using the mails to carry out a fraudulent scheme, where one of the defendants approached one of the jurors and said that he should never have been tried with, another defendant, and that he should never have been indicted, tbe matter could not be complained of by such other defendant, where his counsel made no motion to withdraw a juror on such ground.</p> <p>14. Criminal law <@=>II56(1) — Denial of new triál in exercise of discretion not reviewabie.</p> <p>Where the trial court considered affidavits offered with motion for new trial and exercised a discretion by denying the motion, his action was not reviewabie.</p> <p>15. Criminal law <@=>1038(i), 1056(1) — Instructions not objected or excepted to below not reviewabie.</p> <p>Where no objection or exception was made to the instructions in the court below, they were not reviewabie.</p> <p>^=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of John P. Jaeger, bankrupt. On review of order of referee denying petition of the John Deere Plow Company for reclamation of property.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Suit in equity by Matilda J. Abramson, as administratrix of the Estate of Alfred C. Abramson, against the Rockford Peerless Furniture Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Suit by the State of Tennessee and another against the United States, wherein certain railway companies and the Interstate Commerce Commission asked and were granted leave to intervene as defendants.</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the Harry Porter Company, Inc., against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. On motion to remand to state court. Denied.</p>

Wash Taylor, Jameé Robertson, Theo Dismukes, and others were indicted for violating Penal Code, § 143, denouncing as a crime the rescue of prisoners. On demurrer by the United States to a plea in abatement by certain defendants, Indictment against Wash Taylor and six other defendants for alleged violation of section 143 of the Fenal Code (Comp. St. § 10313). Plea in abatement by the defendants James Robertson and Theo.

<p>Searches and seizures <@s=>3 — That premises were an apartment house does not invalidate search.</p> <p>Where search warrant gave the number and street of premises operated and occupied by defendant, the fact that the premises were an apartment house did not invalidate the search of the defendant’s premises as directed by the search warrant, and no other person could complain.</p>

<p>At Law. Action by Frederick Denman and another against Charles Richardson. On demurrer to complaint.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, Judge.</p> <p>W. V. Smith and E. H. Myerly were convicted of conspiring to violate Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 2, as amended, and they bring error.</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the South Atlantic Dry Dock Company against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. On demurrers to pleas.</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy <§=>68 — “Farming” and “tillage of the soil,” in Bankruptcy Act, synonymous. v</p> <p>“Farming” and “tillage of the soil,” as used in Bankruptcy Act, § 4b (Comp. St. § 9588), are synonymous.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Farming.]</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy @=>67 — Status of alleged bankrupt taken as of date of acts of bankruptcy.</p> <p>The status of an alleged bankrupt, as whether or not he is subject to the act, is to be determined as of the date of the acts charged as acts of bankruptcy.</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy @=68 — Person engaged chiefly in farming.</p> <p>In determining whether or not an alleged bankrupt was engaged chiefly in farming, and so exempt from adjudication, whether his financial difficulties and his indebtedness arose from farming operations or from other business enterprises is a consideration to he regarded.</p> <p>4. Bankruptcy @=68 — Alleged bankrupt held not “farmer.”</p> <p>The alleged bankrupt owned some 4,500 acres of farm lands, on which resided tenants from whom he received, in lieu of rent in cash, one-half the crops raised less a 'deduction for one-half the feed used and one-half the expenses of threshing, regardless of whether the farming operations for the year were profitable or the reverse. While he devoted the larger part of his time to the overseeing of Ms farms, he resided in town, was an officer, manager, and stockholder of a large milling and grain corporation, through which most of Ms Indebtedness was incurred, and also interested as stockholder or partner in various other business enterprises. Held, that he was not a farmer, nor a partner in farming, but was subject to involuntary proceedings in bankruptcy. '</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and PM’ases, First, and Second Series, Farmer.]</p> <p>«g^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in .all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In the matter of the application of Joseph Kupferberg for return of property seized under search warrant affecting No. 15 East Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, New York City.

<p>Corporations ©=»566(6) — Increase in salesman’s compensation for maintenance held “wages,” within statute as to preferences in insolvency proceedings.</p> <p>An increase in the compens¿tion of a salesman for maintenance of himself and later of his family in the Orient, whether designated wages or maintenance, was a part of the compensation passing from the employer to the employee for the particular services, and constituted “wages,” within Rem. & Bal. Code Wash. § 1204, preferring claims for wages in insolvency proceedings.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Wages.]</p> <p>■<@E3>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in .all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Admiralty <§=>22 — Suit for collision with piles held not within admiralty jurisdiction.</p> <p>A group .of piles in the Mississippi river at the foot of a street in New Orleans, used for the mooring of vessels or to keep them in deep water while unloading, heldi a land structure and a suit for injury to them caused by collision with them by a steamship not within the admiralty jurisdiction.</p> <p>(®=aFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

At law. Action by H. W. Pratt against the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, begun in the state court and removed to the United States District Court. On motions to quash personal service outside the state and to discharge garnishees and release the funds impounded. Motions granted.

<p>Petition for Mandamus to the District Court of the United ‘States for the Western District of Arkansas.1</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico,.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware ; Hugh M. Morris, Judge. Suit in equity by the American Telephone & Telegraph Company against the Radio Audion Company and another. Prom a decree denying a motion to dismiss the bill and granting a preliminary injunction (281 Fed. 200), defendants appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan;</p> <p>Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge.</p>