Court Opinion

ID: 9638143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:35:18.967284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:04.160282
License: Public Domain

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part)._
Ben Bradford was a city official who could influence, if he did not control, the purchase of the busses. He was paid money in connection with the sale. While the evidence is not strong against him, it justifies a verdict under the principles decided in the Shushan case, 117 F.2d 110, 133 A.L.R. 1040. I find no evidence at all that W. T. Bradford had any part in or knowledge of the corrupting of Ben Bradford. The evidence touching W. T. Bradford is hardly a score of lines in the record. Hart had a company in New Orleans for which Ahrens was salesman on a commission basis. Ahrens was very anxious to sell the busses which the City of Alexandria was about to buy. He joined forces with the local Ford agency at Alexandria, and being acquainted with W. T. Bradford as of some local weight and influence offered to pay him five percent for his assistance. Ahrens was expecting a profit in the sale of about twenty-five per cent, and nothing was added to the price put on the busses because of that offer to W. T. Bradford. Bradford did very little. Nothing definite is proven. He had no connection at all with the city administration. He was a cousin of Ben Bradford but not personally close to him, being of another faction politically. They had no contact about this deal at all. Nothing suspicious, much less criminal, is shown to have been done by W. T. Bradford. When the first sale was settled for, Ahrens paid him in cash what he had agreed to pay. Bradford had no part in the second sale and was paid nothing on account of that. Ahrens later paid Ben Bradford. The city officials testify W. T. Bradford made no approach to them about the sale. While he was paid a good deal for doing very little, I find no proof that he participated knowingly in any fraudulent scheme.