Court Opinion

ID: 9443620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:26:02.577056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:33.246371
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
On a trial on ten counts of the indictment, appellant was found not guilty on nine counts and guilty on one count. This count set forth that appellant, for the purpose of executing a scheme, knowingly caused to be’ delivered by mail on November 27, 1948, a check for $500, which was mailed by Keller to Pirtle.’ Pirtle was a purchaser of interests in the project and concerned in its success. He was not a salesman of such interests, and he was accused of no wrongdoing, but was one of those claiming to be defrauded.
It is true that to come within the terms of the statute of using the mail in a scheme to defraud, it is not necessary that the victim be deceived, nor that-the scheme be intended to be executed by the use of the mail. ’ Even though it be incidental and unpremeditated, if, in the execution of the scheme, the mail is, in fact, used, the statute is violated. The offense is committed *407when the scheme has been devised and, in pursuance of it, the mail has been used.
In this case, appellant made no representations to Keller, and Keller did not even know that appellant was associated in the matter until long after he had mailed his check to Pirtle; and Pirtle himself made no representations to Keller. Keller sent his check through the mail to purchase the interest without any inquiry about the matter or without any persuasion on the part of anyone. He stated that he had known Pirtle for a long time and just mailed his check to him for the purpose of buying an interest.
There must be some relationship between the transaction involving the use of the mail and the scheme to defraud. McLendon v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 660. Keller had heard nothing whatever about the alleged scheme and had mailed his check without any knowledge concerning it. The mailing of the check was in no way related to a scheme to defraud. It, accordingly, was not mailed in furtherance of or execution of such a scheme. The record discloses no evidence to support appellant’s conviction on Count 1 of the indictment.
The judgment should, accordingly, be reversed, and appellant discharged.