be forced to trial on such allegations, especially when other facts necessary to constitute the offenses charged are omitted, then the constitutional right of the defendant to be 'informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' against him is of no consequence.
Judge Leahy considered an indictment quite similar to the one here under consideration in the case of United States v. Johnson, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 167, and found it to be defective. I agree with his conclusions and treatment of the subject under consideration.
It follows, therefore, that the motion to quash counts one to eighteen, inclusive, should be granted; and it is so ordered.
This leaves for consideration the motion of the defendant to quash count nineteen (19). In this connection it is to be noted that this count adopts by reference all of the allegations of the preceding eighteen counts and then alleges that the defendant 'on or about the dates aforesaid' (meaning, I take it, the 'on or about' dates of the preceding counts), 'within the jurisdiction of this court, in violation of Section 4(a) of the * * * Act of 1942, and Revised Maximum Regulation No. 269, * * * did * * * fail to keep for inspection by the Office of Price Administration, complete and accurate records of said sales or delivery of poultry * * * , by failing to include in such record the price paid or received' therefor. The charge thus made is couched substantially in the language of Section 1429.4 of Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 269, which was put into effect as of December 18, 1942, and which appears to be still of force. The authorities cited above recognize this as a good form of pleading.
Section 4(a) of the Act provides:
'It shall be unlawful * * * for any person * * * to do or omit to do any act, in violation * * * of any regulation, order, or requirement under section 202(b) or section 205(f) * * * .' 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 904(a).
Section 202(b) of the Act provides:
'The Administrator is further authorized, by regulation or order, to require any person who is engaged in the business of dealing with any commodity, * * * , to make and keep records and other documents, and to make reports, and he may require any such person to permit the inspection and copying of records and other documents, * * * .' 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 922(b).
And Section 202(g) provides:
'No person shall be excused from complying with any requirements under this section because of his privilege against self incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893 (U.S.C., 1934 edition, title 49, sec. 46), shall apply with respect to any individual who specifically claims such privilege.' 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 922(g).
I think that count nineteen (19) charges an offense under the Act and Regulation with sufficient clarity for the defendant to understand the nature and cause thereof and to prepare his defense to meet the same; and further that an acquittal or conviction of said charge would stand in bar and in defense of a like charge, occurring on either the first or last date mentioned in the indictment or at any time between said dates.
The motion to quash this count of the indictment should be refused; and it is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.