Curtis

This case is similar to Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin (C. C. A. No. 5671), 36 F.(2d) 907 , this day decided.

The defendant requested the following instruction:

«The request was refused, and instead thereof the court gave the following instruction:

“Now it stands, of course, uneontradieted, and the only reasonable view to take, that when the defendant issued this pamphlet, it issued it to prospective customers in order to impress them with the truth of what it was saying, and in order to induce in them a belief in its truthfulness, and in order to persuade them to act accordingly and buy its lands, if that is the ease, and if the representation is false, that is the only thing that is required to make out a ease of fraud. It is not necessary that the defendant might have maliciously thought, (We will deprive this plaintiff of his money by falsehood and by not giving him the proper equivalent for it.’ Not at all. If they intended to make these representations, and of course they did, for the purpose of influencing him, and of course they did, to secure his belief in it, which they did, and to induce him to act upon it, which they intended to do, then they intended…