Document: 329 U.S. 207 67 S.Ct. 211 91 L.Ed. 193 UNITED § ATESv.BRUNO. No. 67. Argued Nov. 22, 1946. Decided Dec. 9, Mr.Stanley M. Silverberg, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. George R. Sommer, Newark, N.J., respondent. 1 Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court.DP A criminal information was brought against Bruno having wilfully sold1 waste paper at prices higher than ceilings established by Maximum Price Regulation 30.2 The contained five counts, each count charging a sale carload lot in 1944 above ceilings. jury found guilty on all counts. He sentenced to imprisonment six months and fined $500. judgment conviction reversed Circuit Court Appeals. 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 843. case is here petition writ certiorari which we granted because an asserted conflict principle between decision below United States ex rel. Bowles v. Seidmon, 154 228, Seventh 2 charge business, owned relative, bought sold paper. Carrano middleman who from orders Carrano's customers. shipped direct customers, paying price. In sales challenged ordered grade known as assorted kraft. invoiced shipment such charged ceiling price that paid invoice It appears were subject inspection approval customers; they customarily made inspections receipt shipments; if it had been invoiced, customers would pay lower price, debiting with difference. Each shipments question inspected customer its arrival. discovered largely composed corrugated paper, carrying three cases only quality received. thereupon debited two did not complain upgrading retained over-charges.3 Moreover, debits instances mentioned followed heels investigation Office Administration. also shown Bruno's books. His ledger showed sales, but prices. concealed amounts explained constituting his commissions sales. 4 District 'before you can find him guilty, there must have mind intention set then adjusted afterwards according truth situation, intent fix this get away it—an commit crime, formation purpose when he thing, more money law.'4 court could be no sell 'with receiving actually receive price'. 5 We think proper submit jury. evidence seems us ample support conviction. There false grading invoice. determined customers' grade. They specific ceiling. goods those prices; paid. some subsequent adjustment conform shipped. But others not. And bearing integrity system other facts—(1) OPA investigation; (2) inflated disclosed seller's market may convenient device black operations. As Appeals noted, scarce seller send what has, assumption manufacturers will glad take any kind get. view inadequacy supply, buyers cannot always expected reject upgraded or insist upon adjustments. facts sustain theory, sought made. circumstances, well conclude adopted designed bring lawful. 6 Reversed. Section 205(b), Emergency Control Act 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 33, 50 U.S.C.App.Supp. III 925(b), U.S.C.A.Appendix, 925(b). See 7 Fed.Reg. 9732, 8 13049, 17483. seemed proceed assumption, instance ultimate exceed preceding part was: 'In order crime here, defendant excess Now, persons respecting it, accept final necessarily, examination establishment law is, idea received delivered, paid, break law. dealer, wholesale dealer intended get, fact reason didn't discovery without do honest decent still effectively committed above-ceiling receive, so intend, out.'

Category: 0