United States v. Harris
District Court, S.D. California
Emil Harris and C. D. Platt were indicted for using the mails as a means to defraud. The court directed a verdict of not guilty, for defects in the indictment
1Opinion of the Court
ROSS, District Judge.
One of the constituent elements of the offense denounced by the statute upon which the indictment in this case is based is the intended use of the United States mail in aid or furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. It is therefore essential that the indictment allege directly, and not inferentially or by way of recital, that the scheme included the intended use of the mail. U. S. v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 Sup. Ct. 571; Brand v. U. S., 4 Fed. 394; U. S. v. Flemming, 18 Fed. 908; U. S. v. Wootten, 29 Fed. 703; U. S. v. Finney, 45 Fed. 42; U. S. v. Smith, 45 Fed. 562; Weeber…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Weeber v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1894
- United States v. FlemmingDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1883
- United States v. WoottenDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1887
- United States v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lehman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
- United States v. PeuschelDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1902
- Ewing v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1905