Before EVANS, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a sentence based on a conviction of the violation of certain Federal criminal statutes. The two defendants, Henry Sohmer and Morris Uram, were charged in three counts of an indictment with: (a) violation of 12 U.S.C.A. § 1731(a); (b) violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 80; and (c) with a violation of the conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C.A. 88, the conspiracy being to commit the offenses charged in counts one and two.
Defendant Uram did not appeal. Sohmer was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment on the conspiracy count and on the other two counts, his sentence was suspended.
More specifically, it should be said the first count charged defendant with causing a loan to be made for $800,
"which was to be expended on the home of Mr. and Mrs. Royal V. Campbell and more particularly in reroofing the building and repairing the sidewalks and for no other purpose; that in truth and in fact as defendants well knew, the respresentions of the borrowers were false and the moneys received from said loan was not expended on the roof or sidewalk but for personal and private purposes in no way related to the aforesaid premises or on the said proposed improvements thereon."
The second count charged defendant with knowingly and falsely covering up a material fact in respect to said 1939 loan.
The story of the alleged crime will be but briefly stated:
Mr. and Mrs. Campbell were the owners of a farm, the house on which was in need of repair. In 1938 they procured a $550 loan (guaranteed by the F.H.A.), which loan was in default at the time the loan in question was sought, which was in January, 1939. They made another loan ( $800) in 1939. This loan is the basis of the criminal charge.
Both loans were effected by and through the defendants.
The Government contends that defendants knew the 1938 loan was in default at the time the 1939 application was made, and failed to disclose that fact; defendants promised the Campbells a cash payment out of the $800 of $200, which payment was in fact made. The Campbells were given to understand that part of the proceeds of the $800 loan would be used in payment of the first loan, whereas such payment was not made. The $800 loan was ostensibly to make repair on the roof of the Campbells' house and to fix up other places. Only about $50 worth of repair work was done on the premises.
The Campbells were not defendants. They testified for the Government.
The financial condition of the borrowers was told by Mrs. Campbell.
"We bought the farm for $7,500 and $300 have been paid thereon." "We borrowed $1,000 with which to buy the cows." "We owed for feed bill, for electric light bill, etc." In response to urging from defendants, who were endeavoring to have her apply for the loan, she told defendant Sohmer that "We owed $50 a month for the place." " $50 a month for the cows." "We owed $7,200 on the place." "We owed $1,000 on the cows." "We had eight children. That was enough without any more debts". In fact, save for the eight children, the application ...