Riddell

(after stating the facts as above).

[1] The contention that the indictment is insufficient to state an offense under the provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Code, upon which it is based, is, we think, wholly without merit. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a more brazen attempt to defraud the unwary of their money than it sets forth. Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306 , 16 Sup. Ct. 508. 40 L. Ed. 709 ; Oesting v. United States, 234 Fed. 304 , 148 C. C. A. 206 ; Walker v. United States, 152 Fed. 111 , 81 C. C. A. 329 ; Moffatt v. United States, 232 Fed. 522 , 146 C. C. A. 480 ; Colburn v. United States, 223 Fed. 590 , 139 C. C. A. 136 ; Spear v. United States, 228 Fed. 487 , 143 C. C. A. 67 .

[2] It is true that neither of the counts under which the plaintiff in error was convicted set out the alleged fraudulent scheme in detail, but each of them refer to and make part thereof, as they properly may, the scheme set out in the first count. Blitz v. United States, 153 U. S. 308 , 14 Sup. Ct. 924, 38 L. Ed. 725 ; Crain v. United States, 162 U. S. 625 , 16 Sup. Ct. 952, 40 L. Ed. 1097 ; Glass v. United States, 222 Fed. 773 , 138 C. C. A. 321 .

The record shows that in…