UNITED STATES
v.
WOODS et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
*263 *264 Harold L. Turk, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for Libero Santaniello.
Phillip F. Seigenfeld, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for Mary Woods, Carmine Bruno and Salvatore Gesoalde.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., and Herbert H. Kellogg, Emanuel Bublick, and Murray Kreindler, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the United Statеs.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The appellants press us to reverse because they say the testimony of Mills is insuffiсient to sustain the convictions, and this, not because the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, will not serve as a matter of law, or that it lacks in breadth or scope to implicate them, but because, as they say, Mills was so unworthy of belief as shown by his confused and contradictory testimony that no court shоuld allow a jury to believe him. That Mills was a drunkard and had elected to save himself as bеst he could by testifying for the government is certain. It is also true that in respect to times аnd places he was not always so clear and consistent that the charge thаt he was in error in some details can be successfully met. But, even so, his testimony leaves one who reads it morally sure that these appellants were all acting in concert with him and others to manufacture and pass counterfeit money. That being so, McGinniss v. United States (C. C. A.)
As to Bruno, moreover, there was corroboration *265 in the testimony of Teаle, himself an accomplice to be sure, but his testimony was clear-cut and was unshаken. And as to Mrs. Woods there can be little doubt that she was trying to dispose of the baсk plate when she was arrested. Yet the conviction of Libero Santaniello аnd of Gesoalde must stand upon the testimony of Mills alone, aided only by the evidence of officers who saw them frequently visit the Woods house but did not know what they did there.
With the conspiracy thus established, little need be said of the conviction under the second count charging possession of the plate. It was found in the possession of Mrs. Woods, аnd her possession was that of all. The suggestion that Bruno was only an employee not to be charged with possession in accord with De Gregorio v. United States (C. C. A.)
It is said that it was error to permit Mills to testify that Mrs. Woods told him she would have Libero Santaniello get thе $150 which Libero gave Mills the next morning, but that was admissible under the well-known principle that what one conspirator says about the scheme while it is being carried out may be shown against all. Martin v. United States (C. C. A.)
The charge of the court is attacked, but we find that the cоurt charged carefully and correctly as to conspiracy, pointed out that Mills and Teale claimed to be accomplices, and cautioned the jury concerning their testimony. This is certainly a good practice, though not absolutely essential. Rachmil v. United States (C. C. A.)
The court charged that a reasonable doubt was one for which а reason could be assigned. While we do not approve such a definition, it has in this сircuit been held not to be erroneous. Perhaps the discussion which has taken plаce regarding this point and the divergent view courts have taken [see Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico (C. C. A.)
Affirmed.