De Bon v. United States

Appellant has filed a petition for rehear-_ ing in which he asserts that the court’s opinion overlooks: (1) the fact that the veterans’ priority certificates used to acquire the trucks had been obtained by the two veterans before they ever met appellant, (2) appellant’s contention that the veterans merely purchased the trucks for resale purposes, and (3) the alleged error of the court in not answering the jury’s inquiry about sales by veteran dealers to non-veterans.

The substantive charge of which appellant was convicted was that the three defendants, on or about July 8, 1946, made false statements, and concealed material facts in that they caused to be executed a mail order request for purchase of surplus property purporting to be for Czaki, a veteran, when in truth it was defendants’ intention to purchase for the use and benefit of the appellant.

The government’s evidence was sufficient to' show that prior to the making of the mail order request, appellant told Hildebrand, one of the other defendants, that appellant wanted to buy certain White trucks which were available to veterans only, and which appellant was ineligible to acquire. Appellant fully familiar with War Assets…