Court Opinion

ID: 6890689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:40:34.145094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:49.901480
License: Public Domain

MINTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion because I think it clearly invades the province of the trial court. We do not sit here to pass upon the facts upon this motion. That is for the trial court. We sit only to review the trial court’s action, and to determine whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.
In reaching this determination, we do not dispute with the trial court on the conclusions it reached on the facts. We determine only whether the trial court reached a decision it might reasonably have reached upon the facts before it; not whether we, on those facts, might have reached a different conclusion. If the trial court reached a conclusion which it might reasonably have reached, and excluded nothing from its consideration which it ought to have considered, it has not abused its discretion. That is the only question we have to determine. I think a fair review of the trial court’s decision requires us to conclude that there was a basis in reason for its decision and that there was no abuse of its discretion.
The trial judge tried the case and heard the testimony of the witnesses whose veracity is now in question. He found against them after a most careful consideration of each contention of the appellants. He had before him not only the *46witnesses at the trial, but all of the record. He did not exclude anything. He submitted his views in a written opinion covering some sixty pages, far too long to be incorporated here. We upheld his decision and judgment on the original motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. 142 F.2d 588. The trial court held that the showing made on the amendment to the motion, which is now before us, contained nothing to warrant it in holding differently. With this view I am in accord.
The chief controversy revolves around the ownership of a property located at 3424 Lawrence Avenue, Chicago, known as the Albany Park Building. Failure to report the income from this property was one of the charges against Johnson on the original trial. At that trial, William Goldstein testified in part as follows:
“I was requested by Mr. Johnson to go out there and purchase the building for him. * * * I purchased that property at the request of Mr. Johnson. * * * I can state that the amount expended for the purchase of that property was $59,887.05. I got that from Mr. Johnson in the form of currency. Title to that property was taken in the name of Ted W. Goldstein, my son. Subsequently there was a quit claim deed delivered to Mr. William R. Johnson by my son. This Albany Park Building property was purchased July 16, 1937.”
The defendant Johnson, at the trial and by affidavit filed in the original motion for a new trial, denied that he had ever had any such transaction with Goldstein.
The jury, however, on the original trial resolved this issue against the defendant Johnson, and the Supreme Court, in a very sharp opinion somewhat critical of this court, stated most emphatically that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict as to all defendants. Thus, the sufficiency of the evidence is not open to us for consideration. Considering the evidence most favorable to the Government, upon the record as originally presented to the Supreme Court, the jury was justified in finding from the testimony of William Goldstein that he had purchased the Albany Park Building at the request of Johnson, with money furnished him by Johnson, and that the title had been taken in the name of William Goldstein’s son, Theodore Goldstein, who afterwards delivered to Johnson a quitclaim deed for the property. Title was taken in Theodore Goldstein’s name to conceal the fact that Johnson, who intended to open a bank in the building, was the owner. It should be noted that Goldstein testified only to facts of the transaction. He did not attempt to testify categorically that Johnson owned that property. Any such statement would probably have been objectionable as invading the province of the jury. In any event, the jury would have been warranted in finding from Goldstein’s testimony that Johnson was the owner of the Albany Park Building.
The new evidence submitted by the defendants on their amended motion for a new trial consists of the photostatic copies of the individual income tax returns of Theodore Goldstein for the years 1937, ,1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, and 1943, and the affidavits of Edward Wait and Frank Sampson. The affidavit of Edward Wait is wholly immaterial. The income tax returns show that Theodore Goldstein returned the rentals collected from the Albany Park Building each year as his individual income and in each return claimed depreciation on the building. The affidavit of Frank Sampson shows that on January 3, 1944, Theodore Goldstein gave an option for a ten year lease on the property to the Hines Realty and Construction Company, of which Sampson was the president. This transaction was handled by William Goldstein, since his son was then in military service.
The defendants contend that these facts, because they evidence dominion over this property by Theodore Goldstein as though he were the real owner, are conclusive proof that William Goldstein testified falsely on the original trial, and that Theodore Goldstein is the real owner of the property — not Johnson. It does not seem to me that these exhibits attached to the amended motion force any such conclusion. For all that appears in the record, the returns of Theodore Goldstein may be false. He may have been untrue to his trust when he performed these acts of ownership and dominion. In that event his acts with reference to this property would not be in conflict with the testimony of his father, William Goldstein. However, the defendants say that since William Goldstein represented his son in leasing the property and collecting the rents and since, as the defendants assert in their amended motion and in their briefs, William Goldstein procured these income tax returns from Theodore Goldstein and filed them, he was therefore a party to Theodore Goldstein’s acts *47and representations of dominion and ownership over the property.
But the defendants do not disclose all the circumstances surrounding the renting of this property and the disposition of the rents. The evidence on the original motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence showed that in September, 1941, the property had been leased by William Goldstein, as agent of Theodore Goldstein, to the Hines Realty and Construction Company for a period of five years. William Goldstein is reported to have said that the rents which he collected were being held by him, although not in a separate fund, for whoever was the true owner of the premises and that he had been served with a notice by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to hold all property and funds of William R. Johnson.
The Government, in response to the present amended motion for a new trial, has shown by the affidavits of William Gold-stein and Theodore Goldstein that Theodore Goldstein was merely the holder of the legal title and had no other interest of any kind whatsoever in the property. The Government has also shown that the income tax returns on which Theodore Goldstein returned the rentals from the Albany Park Building were all either delinquent or amended returns. For the years 1937 to 1940, he had filed no returns at all, and in 1941, 1942, and 1943, when he had voluntarily filed returns, he had made no claim to rentals from the Albany Park Building.
It appears that the filing of these delinquent and amended returns came about when on April 17, 1944, Edward H. Schultz of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Chicago was advised by an anonymous telephone communication that the income from the Albany Park Building had not been reported by anybody but that rents were supposedly being paid to William Goldstein who claimed to be, agent for Theodore Goldstein. Mr. Schultz assigned Mr. Stanley A. Wodrick, a deputy collector, to conduct an investigation. Mr. Wodrick talked to the tenant of the building and thereafter contacted William Goldstein. Mr. Wodrick insisted that Theodore Goldstein was the owner and was the person obligated to report the rents received from the property since the title still stood in his name. William Goldstein objected, saying that Theodore Goldstein was not the actual owner but was only the title holder of record. Mr. Wodrick called on William Goldstein about ten times thereafter, each time contending that Theodore should return the rents in his income tax returns. But William Gold-stein continued to protest that his son was not the real owner of the building and was not under a duty to return the rents.
Representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue sought to get William Gold-stein to sign a written memorandum containing the following recital: “I have acted as attorney and agent for my son, Theodore, the owner, in the management of the property located at 3424 Lawrence Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, purchased for my son Theodore in 1937. * * * ”
William Goldstein, according to Mr. Schultz, “would not sign any affidavit containing any statement that his son Theodore was ‘the owner’ of the property located at 3424 Lawrence Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, or containing any statement that he purchased that property for his son, Theodore.”
The representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue not only insisted that Theodore Goldstein was required to return as his individual income the rentals from the Albany Park Building, but also claimed that the entire sum paid as purchase price for the property was income to Theodore Goldstein in 1937, the year when the property was purchased, and demanded payment of more than $13,000 as that year’s tax. William Goldstein emphatically denied that his son should assume this liability.
However, after numerous demands by the Bureau that Theodore Goldstein return the rentals on his individual income tax returns and after threats to assess the much larger tax claimed against Theodore Gold-stein if he refused, William Goldstein acquiesced. Delinquent returns for the years 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940, and amended returns for the years 1941, 1942, and 1943, were prepared by the representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and delivered to William Goldstein. He obtained his son’s signature on the returns and paid the tax on behalf of his son. The rents collected were sufficient to cover the tax.
The anonymous manner in which the delinquency was reported, the compulsion under which the returns were made, and the continued insistence of both Theodore Gold-stein and his father that Theodore was not the owner of the property, but merely the title holder of record, are corroborated by *48the agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and are not disputed by the defendants in any respect. Returns made under these circumstances were not the voluntary returns of Theodore Goldstein and were inconsistent with his own view of his relationship toward this property, and with the view of William Goldstein.
The District Court, having considered these additional facts shown on the amended motion together with the facts previously before it on the original motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, again reached the conclusion that William Goldstein did not commit perjury on the original trial of the defendants and that he has not since recanted.
The facts added to the record in this proceeding which show the making and filing of the delinquent and amended income tax returns filed by William Gold-stein, together with the circumstances under which they were made and filed, do not prove that William Goldstein voluntarily took a position that the property in question was the property of Theodore Gold-stein.
Although the leasing and granting of the option to lease showed dominion over the real estate, there is no evidence that William Goldstein held for, or ever paid to, Theodore Goldstein, the rents collected.
The additional evidence adduced in support of the amended motion adds nothing to the proof that was submitted to us on the original motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. In affirming the action of the District Court in the original proceeding in 142 F.2d 588, we said at page 591:
“In this case, the District Court found that Goldstein had not testified falsely or recanted. The court had before it for consideration not only the motion for a new trial and the supporting affidavits but, as the trial court, it had also the record made upon the trial and the demeanor of Gold-stein and others upon the stand. The trial court also had for consideration Goldstein’s affidavits in denial of the so-called newly discovered evidence and the affidavits of others supporting Goldstein. Several of those who made affidavits for the defendants in support of their motion were witnesses at the trial. So it was not merely a printed record that the District Court had before it.
“We cannot say, in the light of the whole record before the District Court, that the so-called newly discovered evidence inevitably leads to the conclusion that Goldstein had testified falsely. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the District Court erred in its finding. Since the District Court found that there was no false testimony or recantation by Gold-stein, the rule discussed in the Larrison case is not applicable.
“Having decided that there was no recantation or false swearing by Goldstein, the District Court then considered the case as any other motion for a new trial on newly discovered evidence would be considered. On such consideration, the court found that the rule for such motions ‘has never been better nor more succinctly stated than’ in Berry v. Georgia, 10 Ga. 511, which he quoted as follows :
“ ‘Upon the following points there seems to be a pretty general concurrence of authority, viz: that it is incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, to satisfy the Court, 1st. That the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial. 2d. That it was not owing to the want of due diligence that it did not come sooner. 3d. That it is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict, if the new trial were granted. 4th. That it is not cumulative only — viz:—speaking to facts, in relation to which there was evidence on the trial. 5th. That the affidavit of the witness himself should be produced, or its absence accounted for. And 6th, a new trial will not be granted, if the only object of the new testimony is to impeach the character or credit of a witness.’
“This is the general rule applicable where there has been no showing of recantation or false swearing and the effect of the newly discovered evidence is considered in its relation to a possible new trial. This rule has been followed in the Federal cases and is of almost universal application among the States.’’
The District Court, having again found that William Goldstein did not commit perjury or' recant, has reached a conclusion upon the whole record which I can not say is unreasonable nor an abuse of discretion. I agree with the District Court that the additional evidence adduced on the amended motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is insuffi*49cient to support such a motion, because it is merely cumulative and impeaching, and would probably not produce a different verdict if a new trial were granted.1
I would reaffirm all we said in United States v. Johnson, 142 F.2d 588. Everything we said there is entirely in harmony with the finding and judgment of the District Court in the case now before us. The judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.

 See authorities cited United States v. Johnson, 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 588 at page 592.