Evening star., 1933-06-21
MITCHELL'S CASE
OF ALLEGED FRAUD
Is GIVEN TO JURY
Continued From First Page.)

unless you find there was an under
wife, or that Mrs Mitchell was merely
nominee and that the stock really
remained in her husbands possession.
NO transfer tax stamps were affixed
to the stocks. 1t is for you to decide
whether the omission was an oversight,
as the defendant says, or whether 1t
was done deliberately"
The J. P. Morgan Co. which held
the stock as collateral for Mr. Mitchelrs
loan" the Judge remarked. was not
rotified of the sale, although Harry w.
Forbes, the attorney Mr.. Mitchell con-
suited. advised him on more than one
occasion to do So"
The court cited the Government con-
tention, that in March, 1882. Mitchell
made a claim against the National City
Co. for the difference between the price
he paid for the 1890 shares of Ma
tional City Bank stock he sold his wife
and the current market price, then be-
paid 1857 for it.
Advice of Counsel.
Commenting on Mitchell's defense
that he acted on advice Of counsel,
Judge Goddard said:
Il wish to advise you that. If man
gives all the facts to an attorney and
follows that attorneys advice in good
faith and honesty. he cannot be con-
victed, even though the advice was
wrong On the other hand, If he set
out wilfully and deliberately to disobey
the law and did not fully advise his
counsel Of all the circumstances, he
cannot excuse himself by saying he act
ed on advice of counsel"
The judge charged the jury not to
draw any differences, unfavorable to
either the defense or the Governmnt by
the fact that Mrs. Mitchell was not per-
mitted to testify. saying he had exclud-
ed her in accordance with a law that a
defendants wife may not testify either
for or against him in criminal trial.
Taking up the s666, ,66667 Mitchell
received from the management fund,
the court said:
II you find this money was a mere
loan, which the defendent was obligated
to pay, then you must find this defend
ant innocent Of the charge If you find
that he was obligated to pay it only
out Of future earnings of the fund, I
charge you to find him guilty in con-
nection with this item
Judge Goddard said the treatment
given other officers of the National City
Co.. who participated in the manage
ment fund had bearing on the case
only as it indicated Mitchell's intent
Whether these other officers did or
did not nay income tax has no bear
ing on this case" he said.
Takes Up Tax Return.
Discussing the examination of Nit
chell's 1929 return by Ambrose W. Hus-
sey, internal revenue agent on whose
report the bureau in Washington passed
fsvorably on the return, Judge God
dard said the only question to be con-
sidered was whether Hussey had been
given full information on the sale of
the Ia, 800 shares to Mrs. Mitchell.
He reminded the jury that Frank w.
Black. who prepared Mitchell's return,
testified he had shown Hussey copies
Of the letters regarding the sale ex-
changed between Mitchell and his wife.
He also pointed out that Hussey's re-
port did not mention the fact that the
sale was to Mitchell's wife.
Taking up the Thornton transaction,
Judge Goddard said:
You have heard Mr. Thornton on
the stand. No doubt you have formed
your own opinions as to how much he
had to do with the transaction.
1T Is for you to determine whether
the sale to Thornton was made in good
faith"
As he concluded his charge. the judge
warned the jury against being swayed
in its verdict by any sympathy you
may feel for this defendant"