277 F. 934 | 2d Cir. | 1921
The plaintiff in error was indicted by the grand jury on two counts. The first count charged that during the year 1920, including the 9th of July, 1920, the plaintiff in error was engaged in the jewelry business in New York City, and that on the 9th of June, 1920, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against him in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and he was adjudicated a bankrupt. It alleges that, while a bankrupt, he unlawfully and fraudulently concealed from his trustee in bankruptcy, $100,000
The second count alleges that the plaintiff in error committed perjury in violation of section 125 of the federal Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10295), in that he took an oath before a referee in bankruptcy and testified falsely that on June 5, 1920, two men, at his place of business in New York City, forcibly took from his possession a wallet containing the diamonds in question, whereas, in truth and fact, no such robbery toolc place, and it is alleged that the plaintiff in error did not believe it to be true, when he testified, that on June 5, 1920) the two men forcibly took from his possession the wallet containing the diamonds in question.
The plan and photograph of the place of business was offered in evidence. The two strángers who, he says, entered, posed as customers, and negotiated with him in' the inner office, and were before his open safe while he held his entire stock of diamonds within their sight. By examining the plan, it is disclosed that the alleged robbers, in making their escape, would have to pass from the inner to the outer office, and then through a door from the outer office leading into the hall of the building. When outcry was made by him, and this was made, according to the plaintiff in error’s story, immediately upon the commission of the assault, one Wertheim rushed from his factory toward the office. The door leading from the factory opened into the outer office almost adjoining the main door, which opened from the hall. Wertheim, in doing this, would traverse a point which the robbers would necessarily pass in their flight. He says he saw no one. One Tammas was standing in the hall three or four minutes waiting for an elevator, and he saw no one pass. An adjoining tenant rushed from his office upon hearing the outcry, and was advised at once that a robbery had been committed. He descended through the stairway to the street and saw no one. This, together with fhe evidence of the physical conditions, as shown by the plans of the office, was the testimony which the government offered to disprove the plaintiff in error’s claim of a robbery.
Judgment affirmed.