The San Francisco call., 1909-03-02
BENSON MUST
PAY PENALTY
IN COUNTY JAIL
Timber Land Operator Found
Guilty of Fraud
Attempt
DR.. E. B. Perrin, Jointly In.
dicted, Again to be
Tried
Convicted Man Decided Against
by the Court of
Appeals


fully evaded the law, must now pay
the penalty Of conspiring to defraud
the governments He will serve one
Years imprisonment in the san Fran
cisco county Jail and pay a fine OF
$1,000.
Dr. T. B. Perrin. the millionaire land
owner who was jointly indicted. tried
and convicted of the: same conspiracy
in the United states district court and
received the same sentence from Judge
de Haven. won an appeal and Will
again be tried on the same indictment.
This is the decision handed down yes
terday by the United States court Of
appeals. 10 which both men had: car
ried their case after being convicted in
the district court.
The specific charge in the indictments
against Benson and Perrin was that
they had entered into a conspiracy TO
defraud the government OF 10000 acres
Of valuable timber land in Tehama
county The state land Office was al
leged 10 have been used by the con-
spirators. land having been obtained
from the state under the school land
laws by means Of fraudulent and ficti-
tious sfidavits. The state was then,
10 demand in exchange land which had
heen included in the government forest
reserva tions,
RELIES On CONTRACT
I'm presenting The. case to the. jury tie
government relied on a contract be
tween Benson and Perrin by which tile
land was TO be obtained and upon ser
tam dummy entries and applications
for land in pursuance OF this contract.
a copy Of this contract which had
been sent TO George &. Hunt was intro
duced at the trial by the government
and TO prove the validity of the con-
tract letter from Perrin which had
been sent TO Hunt at the same time was
also introduced. An affidavit Of Lss :.
Williams. Perrin's secretary. in explafi-
alton OF the manner IN which the con-
tract with BensOnf had been made was
sent 10 Hunt at the same time and
& Perrin,s attorneys demanded that this
also be admitted The government oh
5ected and Judge de Haven sustained.
In making the appeal from the con
Eiction in the lower court both Benson
and Perrin argued that the Indictment
did not charge an ipdictable offense.
Benson7s attorneys relied on the conten-
tion that If any fraud had been COM
mitted II was an offense against the
and relied solely upon the insufficiency
Of the Indictment.
Perrins counsel pleaded that Judge
de Haven had erred ia not allowing
The affidavit of Williams. which would
have proved that a. second contract had
been entered into. which was an innO-
cent one. and that il was proper TO al
low al three, II one We're allowed, they
having been sent at the same time
Judges Morrow and Ross sustained
the contention Of Perrins attorney re-
garding the Williams affidavit but
Judge Gilbert dissented All three
judges upheld the suffieiency Of the in
dictment thus affirming the decision Of
the court below as far as Benson is
concerned.
CHARGE Is SUFFICIENT
IN upholding the indictment Judges
Morrow and Ross said. The unlawful
combination is sufficiently charged in
the Indictment ia the allegation that the
defendants conspired together 10 de-
fraud the United States" In comment
ing upon the arguments against the in
cictment and the contention that the
state and not the United States would
have been defrauded. or. in oher words
that the state would have defrauded
the United States for the cOnspirators,
the judges said thar according to the
theory ''the successful operation Of the
its fraudulent character and. remarked
that the Inherent weakness of this
contention need not be pointed out be-
cause its want Of merit is conclusively
established"
In u2holding the point Of the Perrin
attorneys regarding the error OF the
lower court in not admitting the VIII
liams affidavit. Morrow and Ross saw
every admission is to be taken as an
entirety Of the fact that makes for one
side with the qualifications which limit
ns05ify or destroy its effect on the other
side" This. the judges say. is an axiom
Of law. They also state that where
part Of q document or statement is used
As self-harming evidence against a
PARTY. he has right 70 have the whole
Of it laid before a jury. who may then
consider and attach what weight they
see fit 10 any self-serving statement it
contains.
RIGHT TO EXPLAIN
In conclusion on the Perrin conteu
ton regarding the admission of the
Williams affidavit and the subsequent
contract the judges say that Doctor
Perrin could not be deprived OF the
right 10 testify concerning the agree
ment Of October 81 (the original Ben
son-Perrin centracr7- The agreement
was against him and he had the right
70 make any explanation of it as he
saw fit"
The agreement or February (the
second. Benson-P -PerriH contract) was in
nocent. and Perrin contended that il
was meant 10 be substituted for the
hgst one when il was found that the
first might be construed as illegal"
In granting tie new trial to Perrin
the judges conclude that the weight
the jury would give to such was an
other question and in no way affected
lis right 10 have the evidence laid be-
fore the jury.
In dissenting from sthe opinions of
the other TWO judges and holding that
Perrin is not entitled 10 a new trial
Judge Gilbert comments as follows.
The theory seems 10 be that because
the papers were surrendered at the
same time. the Introduction OF one Of
them by the prosecution entitled the
plaintiff IN error PERRIN TO the intro
ducfion Of the other two.5no matter at
what tilne they were made OF signed
for the reason that they were all part
or single admission.
The letter admitted that Perrin en-
=.