Court Opinion

ID: 9447350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:32:43.997146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:00.200932
License: Public Domain

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
On October 3, 1958, in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, appellants (Jack A. Lemon and Martin de Bruin)1 were indicted for violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. The indictment was in five counts.
Count 1 alleged, in substance, that, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, appellants, for the purpose of executing said scheme and artifice, and attempting to do so, did, on or about June 10, 1958, in the City and County of Honolulu, in the District of Hawaii, place in an authorized depository for mail matter a letter addressed to Clayton C. Holloway, to be sent and delivered by the Post Office Department.
Counts 2-5 were similar to count 1, except that, instead of referring to a letter placed in an authorized depository on or about June 10, 1958, addressed to Clayton C. Holloway, count 2 referred to a letter placed in an authorized depository on or about June 14, 1958, addressed to Mrs. William K. Kahookele; count 3 referred to a letter placed in an authorized depository on or about June 16, 1958, addressed to J. Nozawa; count 4 referred to a letter placed in an authorized depository on or about June 16, 1958, addressed to Margaret Sorrell;, and count 5 referred to a letter placed in-an authorized depository on or about. June 17, 1958, addressed to Robert Enomoto.
Appellants were arraigned, pleaded not. guilty, had a jury trial and were found! guilty on each count of the indictment. Thereupon, two judgments of conviction', were entered- — one against appellant Lemon and one against appellant deBruin. Thereby each appellant was sentenced on each count to be imprisoned' for three months and to pay a fine of' $500.2 This appeal is from the judgments.
The question presented is whether the-evidence was sufficient to sustain the-*375conviction of appellants or either of them on counts 1-5 or any of them. There was substantial evidence to the following effect:
On or before June 10, 1958, appellants devised a scheme for obtaining money from persons hereafter called the persons from whom appellants schemed to •obtain money. There were more than 4,000 such persons.
It was part of the scheme that appellants, acting by and through their agents and employees, would make to each of the persons from whom appellants schemed to obtain money pretenses, representations and promises3 to the effect (1) that appellants would send to each such person by mail, C.O.D., a check book4 worth over $50 in car services, entertainment tickets and free gifts; (2) that such check book would be delivered to such person upon payment of $4.75 to the mail carrier;5 and (3) that each person to whom such check book was delivered would receive, without further cost or obligation, goods and services having a value of more than $50.
It was part of the scheme that these pretenses, representations and promises would be false; that, after making them, appellants would send by mail, C.O.D., to each of the persons from whom they schemed to obtain money a sealed envelope to be delivered to such person upon payment of $4.75 to the mail carrier; that, instead of the promised check book, such envelope would contain a booklet6 consisting of coupons purporting to be “redeemable” in goods or services by persons and firms whose names were printed thereon; and that such booklet would have very little, if any, value.
It was part of the scheme that, relying on the false pretenses, representations and promises mentioned above, each of the persons from whom appellants schemed to obtain money would believe that the sealed envelope sent by appellants contained the promised check book and, so believing, would pay $4.75 to the mail carrier, whereupon the envelope containing a booklet of coupons, but no check book, would be delivered to such person, and the $4.75 would be sent to and received by appellants.
Obviously, the scheme was one for obtaining money by means of false pretenses, representations and promises.
Having devised the scheme, appellants, for the purpose of executing it, did, on or about June 10, 1958, in the City and County of Honolulu, place in an authorized depository for mail matter a letter addressed to Clayton C. Holloway, to be sent and delivered by the Post Office Department.
I conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of each appellant on count 1. Since the sentences on counts 2-5 added nothing to the sentences on count l,7 it is unnecessary to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellants or either of them on counts 2-5 or any of them.8
For the reasons I have indicated, the judgments should be affirmed.

. Appellants sometimes called themselves Honolulu Customers Check Book.

. Each judgment provided that the sentences of imprisonment on counts 1-5 should run concurrently, and that payment of the fine of $500 on count 1 would constitute payment of the fine on each of' the remaining counts. Thus the sentences on counts 2-5 added nothing to-the sentences on count 1.

. It was part of the scheme that these pretenses, representations and promises would be made by telephone.

. It was part of the scheme that the promised check book would be described and referred to by appellants as a “Honolulu customers check book.”

. It was part of the scheme that appellants would pretend that the $4.75 was to cover the cost of “printing and handling” the promised check book.

. It was part of the scheme that each booklet would be labeled “Honolulu Customers Check Book,” but would not be a check book or anything resembling a check book.

. See footnote 2.

. Haid v. United States, 9 Cir., 157 F.2d 630; Jaynes v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F.2d 367, 15 Alaska 621; Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F.2d 742; Paquet v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F. 2d 203; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 222; Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 245 F.2d 274; Donaldson v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 364; Robinson v. United States, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 645; Stein v. United States, 9 Cir., 263 F.2d 579; Elkins v. United States, 9 Cir., 266 F.2d 588.