Alford

The appellant was convicted of using the mails to execute a scheme to defraud in violation of 18 USCA § 338, Criminal Code, § 215. Appellant claims that one of the essential elements of'the scheme alleged in the indictment was not proved, and that therefore he was convicted of a different scheme than that alleged in the indictment, and that thus his conviction is in violation. of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (article 5), requiring that prosecutions be instituted by indictment. To understand this contention the allegations of the indictment which are rather lengthy will be summarized. The alleged scheme was to secure money from the victims by representing to them that the appellant was drilling and would continue to drill a development well upon a large tract of potential oil land in Cimarron county, Okl., of about 30,000 acres at a cost of $300,-000; that the purchaser of such land from the appellant would secure by his grant deed to be executed when payment was completed a fee-simple title to the acre or more described in the contract of sale therefor which was to be executed by the appellant, upon part payment of the purchase price. It is alleged that appellant did…

(dissenting),

TI had supposed it to be a universal rule that, within reasonable limits, a cross-examiner has the right to disclose bv cross-examination the conditions under which a witness testifies and the environment from which he eomes to the witness stand in order to enable the jury more justly to weigh his testimony. Generally, in case of objection, counsel cannot be required to declare what he expects to prove (Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626 , 14 S. Ct. 448 , 38 L. Ed. 292 ); but particularly is this true of a cross-examination, Touching considerations affecting the eredibility of the witness, the cross-examiner often cannot know in advance just what facts he will be able to uncover. Sometimes, as apparently was the ease here, he may have intimation of a condition whieh in itself probably would be of little or no importance, but whieh with the surrounding circumstances when fully disclosed may very greatly affect the credibility of the witness and the weight of his testimony. To me, therefore, it seems to be beside the question to suggest, as stated in the majority opinion, that counsel “was merely in pursuit of fishing expedition by which he hoped to discredit the…