Williams v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Williams v. United States

55 F.2d 226, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3748

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1932

DocketNo. 6253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 F.2d 226 (Williams 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

Williams v. United States, 55 F.2d 226, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3748 (5th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of using the United States mail for the purpose of executing a seheme to defraud, in violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code, 18 USCA § 338.

The scheme alleged was to obtain credit by means of a false financial statement. It is admitted that the statement described in the indictment, and which purported to be signed by appellant, was false, and was sent by mail. The questions in dispute were whether appellant signed it, and mailed it, or caused it to be mailed. He denied that he did either; and the government had no direct proof, but relied on circumstantial evidence. There was sufficient proof, based upon a comparison of handwriting, to support the inference that appellant signed the statement. The trial court charged the jury that if he did sign it, that was enough, the government’s ease was made out, and that they had the right to infer also that he mailed it.

That charge was duly excepted to, and in our opinion it was erroneous. It does not logically follow that appellant mailed the statement from the single circumstance that he signed it. Freeman v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 748. There were several methods available for making delivery of the statement besides the use of the mail. If appellant chose one of such other methods, and the mail was used by some one else without his knowledge or consent, he would not be guilty of the offense charged against him. We do not mean to say that the signing of the statement was not a circumstance tending to show guilt, or that it, when considered by the jury in connection with other circumstances in the ease, was not sufficient to justify the inference that appellant mailed the statement or caused it to be mailed. We go no further than to hold that the charge as given was erroneous.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of using the United States mail for the purpose of executing a seheme to defraud, in violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code, 18 USCA § 338.

The scheme alleged was to obtain credit by means of a false financial statement. It is admitted that the statement described in the indictment, and which purported to be signed by appellant, was false, and was sent by mail. The questions in dispute were whether appellant signed it, and mailed it, or caused it to be mailed. He denied that he did either; and the government had no direct proof, but relied on circumstantial evidence. There was sufficient proof, based upon a comparison of handwriting, to support the inference that appellant signed the statement. The trial court charged the jury that if he did sign it, that was enough, the government’s ease was made out, and that they had the right to infer also that he mailed it.

That charge was duly excepted to, and in our opinion it was erroneous. It does not logically follow that appellant mailed the statement from the single circumstance that he signed it. Freeman v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 748. There were several methods available for making delivery of the statement besides the use of the mail. If appellant chose one of such other methods, and the mail was used by some one else without his knowledge or consent, he would not be guilty of the offense charged against him. We do not mean to say that the signing of the statement was not a circumstance tending to show guilt, or that it, when considered by the jury in connection with other circumstances in the ease, was not sufficient to justify the inference that appellant mailed the statement or caused it to be mailed. We go no further than to hold that the charge as given was erroneous.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F.2d 226, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-united-states-ca5-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack