Bennett v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Bennett v. United States

89 F.2d 52, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3383

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1937

DocketNo. 8340

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 F.2d 52 (Bennett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. United States, 89 F.2d 52, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3383 (5th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is no bill of exceptions to show what occurred on the trial. No error appears on the face of the record. The indictment, which is in seven counts, though what precedes the second count is not specifically designated as “first count,” is based on the statute punishing the use of the mails to effect a scheme to defraud. 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. The verdict found guilt on the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts. There is an implied acquittal on the first and seventh counts. The first count alleged a use of the mails in Illinois only, so that no prosecution in Florida could succeed for that use of the mails. The fraudulent scheme was set forth in detail in the first count only. Each of the other counts expressly referred to the description of it in the first count, and alleged uses of the mails in Florida. The want of jurisdiction in the court in Florida to try the accused for the use of the mail in Illinois did not affect its jurisdiction to try the uses of the mails in Florida although to effect the same scheme of fraud. While the first count was thus on its face bad, the references to it for the details of the scheme which were made in the other counts were sufficient. Blitz v. United States, 153 U.S. 308, 14 S.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Barnard v. United States (C.C.A.) 16 F.(2d) 451. The counts found by the jury to be true allege offenses against the United States which the court had jurisdiction to try. The judgment on them is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

There is no bill of exceptions to show what occurred on the trial. No error appears on the face of the record. The indictment, which is in seven counts, though what precedes the second count is not specifically designated as “first count,” is based on the statute punishing the use of the mails to effect a scheme to defraud. 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. The verdict found guilt on the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts. There is an implied acquittal on the first and seventh counts. The first count alleged a use of the mails in Illinois only, so that no prosecution in Florida could succeed for that use of the mails. The fraudulent scheme was set forth in detail in the first count only. Each of the other counts expressly referred to the description of it in the first count, and alleged uses of the mails in Florida. The want of jurisdiction in the court in Florida to try the accused for the use of the mail in Illinois did not affect its jurisdiction to try the uses of the mails in Florida although to effect the same scheme of fraud. While the first count was thus on its face bad, the references to it for the details of the scheme which were made in the other counts were sufficient. Blitz v. United States, 153 U.S. 308, 14 S.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Barnard v. United States (C.C.A.) 16 F.(2d) 451. The counts found by the jury to be true allege offenses against the United States which the court had jurisdiction to try. The judgment on them is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F.2d 52, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-united-states-ca5-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack