Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

purposes. It is not a fatal variance to charge that the offense was committed with reference to two women, when there is proof only as to one of them; 7 nor, when the woman transported was described as Opal Clark if it is proved that she was known as Jeanette Clark, and that her real name was wholly different.8 Nor is it a misjoinder to unite a count for bringing a woman to a man with another for transporting the two to a place for prostitution.9

Any violation of the statute "shall be prosecuted in any court having jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which said violation was committed, or from, through, or into which any such woman or girl may have been carried or transported as a passenger in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, contrary to the provisions of any of said sections." 10

§ 506h. Indictments for larceny and receiving stolen goods. An indictment for larceny, or for receiving stolen goods, should describe the stolen property as fully as the circumstances of the case permit.1 A description of it as "certain. property of the United States furnished for the military service" is insufficient. Descriptions have been held to be sufficient: "a large quantity of Wayne knit hose, to wit, one case of hose, then and there of the value of, to wit, five hundred and seventy-six dollars." "Certain goods and chattels moving as and constituting a part of an interstate shipment of freight, to wit, 49 cases of whisky, which had theretofore been shipped," naming the shipper, the place of shipment, the place of consignment, and the name of the railroad company in possession. A specified quantity of nitrate of soda of a certain value.5

8

6 U. S. v. Westman, 182 Fed. 1017. See Freed v. U. S., D. C. C. A., 266 Fed. 1012; supra, § 500.

7 Bennett v. U. S., 227 U. S. 333, 57 L. ed. 531; affirming C. C. A., 194 Fed. 630.

8 Ibid. Supra, § 497h.

9 Freed v. U. S., D. C. C. A., 266 Fed. 1012. See supra, § 501.

10 Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 395, $5, 36 St. at L. 826, Comp. St., § 8816.

§ 506h. 1 Edwards v. U. S., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 848.

2 Ibid.

3 Pounds v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 242.

4 Fleck v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 617. See Morris v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 516.

5 Tredwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 350.

An indictment charging that defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit a robbery need not allege any specific intent.6 An indictment charging defendant with robbery is supported by evidence that he aided and abetted in such a robbery.7

An indictment for entering a railroad car containing an interstate shipment for the purpose of committing larceny is sufficient; when it follows the language of the statute, specifically describes the car, names the owner of the car, avers that the car contained an interstate shipment, naming the States, and the consignor and consignee, and alleges that the breaking was with intent to commit larceny. When a count charging larceny or breaking with an intent to commit larceny in a car containing an interstate shipment in transit from one State to another, "which car was then and there in the possession of" a specified railroad company and sufficiently alleges the place of the crime at the last place named.10 An averment that the property was stolen from a specified car in the freight yards of a specified railroad, a common carrier, and was part of an interstate shipment sufficiently describes the bailee.11 A failure to allege the incorporation of the railroad company did not vitiate an indictment.12 There was no fatal variance between a count charging larceny from a freight car in the yards of a specified railway company and proof that the goods were taken from the railroad's freight house then under the control of the United States Administration.1 13

An error in failing to require the prosecutor to elect whether he would proceed on a count for larceny from an interstate carrier, or on a count for receiving goods stolen from such carrier, was held to be harmless, where the punishment did not exceed that authorized for a single count.14

6 Vane v. U. S., C. C. A., 254 Fed. 32.

7 Ibid.

8 Act of February 13, 1913, 37 St. at L. 670, Comp. St., § 8603. This statute is constitutional. Morris v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 516, 519.

9 Ibid.

10 Greenburg v. U. S., C. C. A., 253 Fed. 728.

11 Nudelman v. U. S., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 942.

12 Morris v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 516.

13 Nudelman v. U. S., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 942.

14 Ibid. See Morris v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 516.

§ 5061. Indictments for embezzlement. "Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come, and it differs from larceny in the fact that the original taking of the property was lawful, or with the consent of the owner, while in larceny the felonious intent must have existed at the time of the taking."1

If at the time of obtaining lawful possession, the one to whom property is entrusted has the intention of appropriating it for his own use, and he subsequently makes such appropriation he commits the crime of larceny.2 If the wrong doer has loaded the property on cars of a railroad company, before his appropriation thereof, to his own use, the possession has then passed to the common carrier and its subsequent conversion is larceny." Where the charge was conspiracy to defraud the United States by retaining more than the proper share of the proceeds of the sale of goods in the possession of the Government, it is immaterial whether the Government had the right to make the sale. The right of the accused to deduct as a commission, part of the amount converted to his own use, though he had not separated this from the rest is no defense to such a charge.5 In an indictment for an embezzlement by a postmaster, the pleader need not state by what means a depository of the post office was designated, or a post office inspector made the authorized agent of the department, when general averments of such designation and such authority are therein set forth. An indictment charging that the defendant, "being then and there an assistant clerk or employee" in a certain post office, embezzled a certain sum, the property of the United States, was held to be defective because it did not allege that the money came into his possession by virtue of his employment.7 Upon the charge

§ 506i. 1 Moore v. U. S., 160 U. S. 268, 40 L. ed. 422; Tredwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 350, 352. 2 Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 196, 23 Sup. Ct. 98, 47 L. ed. 130; Tredwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 350.

3 Tredwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 350.

4 U. S. v. U. S. Brokerage & Trading Co., 262 Fed. 459, 5 Ibid.

6 Foster v. U. S., C. C. A., 256 Fed. 207.

7 Moore v. U. S., 160 U. S. 268, 40 L. ed. 422.

of preventing for approval a false and fraudulent claim for expenses during the same month, each item of the claim which is supported by a separate voucher may be made the subject of the separate count.8 Under such indictment which charges a false and fraudulent claim against the United States for fortyfive dollars for expenses incurred, proof that the claim presented was for a larger sum is not a fatal variance when there is further proof that such amount of such claim covered by the voucher, had not been paid by the claimant.9

The charge that defendants conspired to violate an order of the Director General requiring railroads to sell certain unclaimed freight at public auction to the highest bidder by delivering certain freight under a corrupt agreement and not at public auction to the highest bidder is insufficient; since, the word "delivery" does not import a final disposition.10

It has been held that where securities belonging to different people are embezzled by a single act only one criminal offense is committed.11 Counts charging the embezzlement of money and of postage stamps may be united.12

§ 506j. Indictments for counterfeiting. An indictment charging the defendant with having in his possession and uttering counterfeits resembling the silver coin coined at the mints commonly called a dollar1 need not aver that such coins were not one of the minor coins of the United States; 2 although the uttering and publishing of counterfeited minor coins is a separate offense subject to less punishment when minor coins of the United States are defined by another statute as the five, three, and one cent pieces. It was held that an indictment charging the defendant with passing a counterfeit coin, to defraud a specified person, was not defective because it further averred that he passed the coin to that person or to another.5

8 Fain v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 473.

9 Ibid.

10 U. S. v. U. S. Brokerage & Trading Co., 262 Fed. 459.

11 Henry v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 459.

12 McNeil v. U. S., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 827.

§ 506j. 1 Penal code, § 163, 35

St. at L. 1119, Comp. St., § 10333. 2 Linningen v. Morgan, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 645.

3 Penal Code, § 164, 35 St. at L. 1119, Comp. St., § 10334.

4 U. S. R. S., § 3515, Comp. St., § 6458.

5 U. S. v. Bejandio, 1 Woods, 294, Fed. Cas. No. 14,561.

§ 506k. Indictments under the tobacco laws. An indictment for the removal of cigars from their place of manufacture without their being packed in boxes, duly stamped and the stamps. duly cancelled, containing a description of the numbers of the manufactory, District and State,1 need not aver that the removal

§ 506k. 1 U. S. R. S., § 3397 (as amended), March 1, 1879, ch. 125, § 16, 20 St. at L. 348, Comp. St., § 6207.

"Whenever any cigars are removed from any manufactory, or place where cigars are made, without being packed in boxes as required by the provisions of this chapter, or without the proper stamp thereon denoting the tax, or without stamping, indenting, burning, or impressing into each box, in a legible and durable manner, the number of the cigars contained therein, the number of the manufactory, and the number of the district and the State, or without properly affixing thereon and canceling the stamp denoting the tax on the same, or are sold, or offered for sale, not properly boxed and stamped, they shall be forfeited to the United States. And every person who commits any of the above-described offenses shall be fined for each such offense not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than

two years. And every person who packs cigars in any box bearing a false or fraudulent or counterfeit stamp, or who affixes to any box containing cigars a stamp in the similitude or likeness of any stamp required to be used by the laws of the United States, whether the same be a customs or internal-revenue stamp, or who buys, receives, or has in his possession any cigars on which

the tax to which they are liable has not been paid, or who removes, or causes to be removed, from any box any stamp denoting the tax on cigars, with intent to use the same, or who uses, or permits any other person to use, any stamp so removed, or who receives, buys, sells, gives away, or has in his possession any stamp so removed, or who makes any other fraudulent use of any stamp intended for cigars, or who removes from the place of manufacture any cigars not properly boxed and stamped as required by law, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than three years. Provided, That cigars packed expressly for export, and which shall be exported to a foreign country under the restrictions and regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section, and also from the provisions of section thirtythree hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes, requiring a label to be affixed to each box."

U. S. R. S., § 3398, Comp. St., § 6208. "The absence of the proper revenue stamp on any box of cigars sold, or offered for sale, or kept for sale, shall be notice to all persons that the tax has not been paid thereon, and shall be prima facie evidence

« AnteriorContinuar »