United States v. White

150 F. 379, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJune 14, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 F. 379 (United States v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. White, 150 F. 379, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26 (D. Md. 1906).

Opinion

MORRIS, District Judge

(charging jury). You have given most patient attention to the testimony in this case, and now it will soon become your serious duty to decidé it.

The Congress of the United States has enacted laws to exclude from the mail all schemes devised to defraud by the use of such mails. It [380]*380has sought to protect the public from intentional schemes to cheat intended to be carried into effect by means of the postal facilities supplied by the government. The duty of protecting the community against such schemes through the enforcement of this law rests, in the first instance, upon the' proper law officers of the government. As you have seen, this obligation they faithfully" tr)-- to meet,-but no criminal law'can be enforced except by the verdict of the jury, and therefore the efficiency of every law depends on the intelligence and fidelity of the jury. In this case the government, by the witnesses it has produced, has been endeavoring to establish to your satisfaction that the very great use which the defendant, during a period of over a year, was admittedly making of the mails, was not an honest and legitimate use, but a dishonest and a'fraudulent use, and the grand jury has so charged in its indictment. It is for you to determine whether or not that indictment, or any cottnt of it, has been proved to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt. As you have heard from the witnesses, and from the defendant himself, the defendant advertised largely that to any one who would communicate with him. he would be able to impart most wonderful and important knowledge and power. The point which you are to consider and determine is, not whether it is possible that the things which the defendant promised to do could be possibly done by any one, but whether it has been proven to you that this defendant did not intend to do what he promised he could and would do. In determining that question, you are entitled to consider and weigh every fact and circumstance which you find to have been proved which in your judgment throws light upon his good faith. The question is: Did he honestly, in good faith, intend to do the things which he promised he could and would do, as the consideration for the money -which he proposed to himself to obtain from those with whom he opened up communication through the post office as charged in the indictment?

In his preliminary pamphlet entitled “Blessings to All Mankind,” “The Greatest Secrets Ever Revealed,” he describes the book he. had to sell which you know as the “Red Book.” By studying that book he asserts that the student can learn, during his spare hours at home. Spiritualism, Hypnotism, Willism, Magnetism, Selfism, Mental and Magnetic Healing, and White and Black Art. With regard to Personal Magnetism and Selfism, he states that you should purchase his book and learn, understand, and master it, because it will give you the mastery of minds and the ability to mold at pleasure the human will; that it will enable you to treat diseases; that it is a miracle worker, and an agency of success, position, wealth, and fame;'that it is available to young and old of either sex, and that it is his proud boast to have made it the most easily acquired and profitable profession known to man or woman; that this force gives a person the power to change their life into one grand success; that the defendant’s complete system of operating enables you to turn all failures into absolute success and happiness, raises you from poverty and obscurity to the proud" position of a conqueror of the world, and causes you to have love, wealth, health, and prosperity. There were many more positive promises, as you" have been made aware by the reading of- this little pamphlet which has been put in evidence for your information.

[381]*381The Indictment.

Although there are five counts in the indictment, there are only three separate offenses against the law charged in the indictment; that is to say, there are only three separate letters alleged to have been mailed by the prisoner. The first of these is set forth in the first, second, and third counts of the indictment. It is what has been referred to in the testimony as the “second letter” that is the letter which in the evidence has been described as the “second” in the series of letters which, according to the evidence, were sent out by the prisoner to persons whom he desired to induce to subscribe for the courses of instruction. The letter is the one addressed to Helen Bougart, Harrisburg, Pa., and is dated 10/17/05; that is, the 17th of October, 1905. The letter mentioned in the fourth count of the indictment is a letter alleged to have been written to Addie M. Davis, and is dated 11/6/05; that is, the 6th of November, 1905. It acknowledged the receipt of $1 for which, as it says, “We are selling you a yard of pure parchment.” The remaining letter is one of the so-called horoscope of life-reading letters addressed to Virginia A. Mason, and is alleged to have been mailed on the 29th of March, 1906. Helen Bongart, Addie M. Davis, and Virginia A. Mason have all been on the witness stand, and each one has testified that she received the letter from the defendant addressed to her, and Miss Hannan’s testimony and the cards and records found in the prisoner’s possession indicate that such letters were sent out to the persons named in the indictment. This is legally sufficient evidence, if it actually convinces you, to justify you in finding that the three letters were mailed, as charged in the indictment.

It is also necessary for the government to show that the scheme or artifice to defraud charged against the prisoner was one which was to be effected by opening communication with divers persons by means of the post office establishment of the United States-, and by inciting said persons to open communication by means of the said post office establishment with him. There is much evidence that the defendant advertised extensively in various parts of the country, and that in the advertisements he urged the persons reading them to write to him, and that when he received' letters from such persons he had made all arrangements to carry on a systematic correspondence through the mails with such persons. -This evidence, if you believe it, is legally sufficient to justify you in finding that the schemes and artifices to defraud charged against the prisoner in the indictment, if you shall find that he had, in point of fact, devised such schemes or artifices to defraud, were to be effected by opening communication with divers persons by means of the post office establishment of the United States, and by inciting such persons to open communication with him through such establishment. That the scheme was to be effected through the use of the post office establishment of the United States, and that the prisoner caused the three letters named in the indictment to be put in the mail, are matters about which, under the evidence in this case and the defendant’s own testimony, you will probably have no difficulty, as that is not one of the matters contested by the defendant.

It remains, however, for the government to satisfy you that those [382]*382letters were mailed in and for executing the schemes and artifices to defraud which are charged in the various counts of the indictment. These schemes and artificies to defraud, leaving out the technical and uncontroverted matters, are as follows:

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

Related

New v. United States
245 F. 710 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 F. 379, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-white-mdd-1906.