show that he cooperated with Kelly by making a fictitious entry in a minute book in an effort to lend an appearance of regularity to a gross fraud.
It is urged that there is not sufficient evidence to show that the defendant Faust Moreschi was a member of the conspiracy. True, the evidence against him is not as strong as that against his co-defendants. Nevertheless, it appears that he signed two union checks, which were misapplied by Kelly. His explanation was that he had signed them in blank and did not know that they would be used for an improper purpose. It was for the jury, however, to determine whether to believe this explanation or to reject it. In view of the fact that Moreschi's credibility was considerably impeached and shaken on cross-examination, the jury had a right to discard his version of this affair. Another transaction involving Moreschi consisted of a payment by a union organization to him of the sum of $ 1,000 for expenses of attending a labor convention at Toronto. He admitted that a large part of this money was expended on entertainment in bar rooms and restaurants. He was also paid the sum of $ 500 for 'organization expenses'. He admitted that he used the money for a trip to Florida, but claimed that the trip was undertaken for labor union business. The Government contends that in the guise of expenses these funds were actually converted by Moreschi. Questions of fact were thus presented for the decision of the jury. The court finds no reason to interfere with its verdict.
The defendant Weiner is in a somewhat different position from that of the other defendants. Unlike them, he was not an officer or a member of any of the labor organizations. He apparently is a business man in St. Mary's County, Maryland, where one of the unions was operating. Apparently Kelly conceived the idea of building barracks and two restaurants for members of that union, and arranged with the defendant Weiner to undertake this work. The evidence tends to show that Kelly caused union funds to be turned over to Weiner to cover the cost of constructing these buildings. They were erected by Weiner on land owned by him jointly with one Dorothy Bond, who later became Kelly's wife. After constructing these buildings Weiner leased them to the union and collected rent. After the union no longer had any use for these structures, Weiner sold the property as his own and apparently treated the proceeds as belonging to himself. To summarize this transaction, Weiner built the buildings on land of which he was part owner; the cost of construction was borne by the union; the latter paid rent for these buildings to Weiner, who subsequently sold them for his own benefit. The result was that the union received nothing in return for its own investment and even paid rent for the use of buildings which were constructed with its own money. Weiner's transactions with the union were manifestly reprehensible.
The question presented as to Weiner is whether he was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. As stated above, a defendant may enter the ranks of the conspirators subsequently to the inception of the agreement and yet be guilty of conspiracy. Neither is it necessary for him to know all of the conspirators, or be cognizant of all of the ramifications of the illegal combination. It must appear, however, that he knew of the existence of the conspiracy and took some part in furthering it, in order to justify his conviction. 'Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators', United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210, 61 S. Ct. 204, 206, 85 L. Ed. 128. Did Weiner know of the existence of the conspiracy and, if so, did he do anything to further it? The indictment charges that the membership of the conspiracy comprized the defendants as well as certain other persons to the grand jury unknown. The proof adduced by the Government at the trial tended to indicate that one of the unidentified conspirators was one Leo Nazdin, who cooperated with Kelly in some of the activities of the latter. Specifically, Leo Nazdin signed some checks by which union funds were transferred to the defendant Weiner for use in the construction of the above-mentioned barracks and restaurants. From this evidence, the jury had a right to infer that the defendant Weiner knew of the existence of the conspiracy, i.e., that Kelly had conspired with at least one other person, to wit, Leo Nazdin, to misapply union funds. The law does not require that Weiner should have known the names of all of the other conspirators, or be aware of all of the activities and ramifications of the conspiracy. It is sufficient that he knew of its existence. He assisted in furthering it by facilitating the transfer of union funds to himself. Under the circumstances the jury's finding that Weiner was one of the conspirators is supported by substantial evidence, Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 556, 557, 68 S. Ct. 248, 256. The remarks of the Supreme Court in the Blumenthal case, supra, are applicable to this aspect of the case at bar:
'conspiracies involving such elaborate arrangements generally are not born full grown. Rather they mature by successive stages which are necessary to bring in the essential parties. And not all of those joining in the earlier ones make known their participation to others later coming in.
'The law does not demand proof of so much. For it is most often true, especially in broad schemes calling for the aid of many persons, that after discovery of enough to show clearly the essence of the scheme and the identity of a number participating, the identity and the fact of participation of others remain undiscovered and undiscoverable. Secrecy and concealment are essential features of successful conspiracy. The more completely they are achieved, the more successful the crime. Hence the law rightly gives room for allowing the conviction of those discovered upon showing sufficiently the essential nature of the plan and their connections with it, without requiring evidence of knowledge of all its details or of the participation of others. Otherwise the difficulties, not only of discovery, but of certainty in proof and of correlating proof with pleading would become insuperable, and conspirators would go free by their very ingenuity.'
The foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that the indictment charges and the proof shows a single conspiracy to which all of the defendants were parties.
Motions for a new trial or in the alternative for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict, are denied.