48 F.2d 46 | 5th Cir. | 1931
Under an indictment in five counts for using the mails to defraud, Claude Nichols and J. W. Nichols were convicted on all counts, J. B. Nichols on three of them, and Nell Sellers Smith on one. Upon their appeal the assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the indictment, the refusal of the court to direct a verdict of not guilty, the rulings on evidence, and the instructions to the jury.
The fraudulent plan is set forth fully in the first count. The remaining counts do not repeat it, but each after a formal preamble as to the time and venue alleges: “Said defendants so having devised said scheme and artifice to defraud said Central States Life Insurance Company of St. Louis, Missouri, as hereinbefore set forth and described, in pursuance of said scheme, etc.,” used the mails in a stated way. The objection is that the counts, except -the first, set forth no crime because they do not allege any scheme or artifice to defraud; there being no express adoption of the allegations of the first count. That reference may be made to another count to avoid repetition is well settled. Crain v. United States, 162 U. S. 625, 16 S. Ct. 952, 40 L. Ed. 1097. That a reference in the very form above set forth is sufficient was held in Clark v. United States (C. C. A.) 298 F. 293.
The cashier’s cheeks sent to the insurance company in payment of premiums had nothing on them or accompanying them to show who sent them. Each one came through the post office of a place at which one of the Nichols had resided. The objection that it was not proved that either of them had sent the checks was not good. The payment of the premiums to keep the insurance in force was part of the res gestas, what happened about the insurance. That it was only shown that the Nichols might have paid them rendered the evidence of little weight, but did not make it inadmissible.
The testimony of persons at Lakeland, such as the postmaster, that they had never known of a William Edward Smith there, that his name was not in the city directory or telephone books, and that on inquiry they could not learn of him, was admissible. Had they been persons with no especial opportunity to' know the residents of Lakeland, and had they made no inquiry for Smith, their not knowing him would have proven nothing. But the burden of showing that no such person had lived in Lakeland could have been borne in no other way than by such proof as was offered. While not a demonstration, it was some evidence of the negative fact to be proved. 23 C. J. “Evidence,” §§ 1762, 1790.
Testimony was admitted that J. B. Nichols seemed nervous while investigation was in progress touching the boat used on the fishing trip. This was, of course, as objected, a conclusion or opinion of the witness. But where the impressions giving rise to the conclusion cannot be given to the jury so as to enable them to draw the proper conclusion as well as the witness, the conclusion of the witness in connection with the best details of his observations that he can give is allowable. Mayor v. Wood; 114 Ga. 370, 40 S. E. 239. This rule is constantly applied to interpretations of expression of the face or the demeanor of an observed person. 22 C. J. “Evidence,” § 705.
Evidence that Claude Nichols on his way to Miami in February, 1929, inquired at Lakeland as to the moral character of his friend’s female stenographer, and whether she would be interested in making a nice piece of money, was not irrelevant. It was admitted as tending to show that Claude Nichols was seeking a widow for William Edward Smith, later found in Nell Sellers at Miami.
The testimony of physicians and others who had had long and varied experience with drowning .and drowned persons as to the behavior of the bodies of such was correctly allowed. This was a proper field for expert testimony, and expertness can come through experience as well as special education. 22 C. J. “Evidence,” § 606.
We have examined the instructions to the jury complained of, and find no cause for reversal therein.
Affirmed.