Order detailing O'Malley's probation for Criminal Case No. 14459: United States vs. Robert Emmet O'Malley, Defendant. In this document, Judge Merrill E. Otis outlines the details of O'Malley's probation followed by a memorandum that clarifies custody and parole conditions of the defendant.
Indictment for Criminal Case No. 14742: United States vs. John J. Pryor, Defendant. In this indictment, the defendant is charged with income tax fraud for the calendar years 1934 through 1937. Pryor, co-owner of Boyle-Pryor Construction Company, reported $12,000 in gross income in 1934 while the true figure was $206,487.05. His reported gross income figured to only $403 in income tax due; his actual earnings required him to pay $81,751.08.
Verdict and Commitment for Criminal Case No. 14742: United States vs. John J. Pryor, Defendant. Upon plea of guilty for three counts of income tax fraud, Pryor is sentenced to federal penitentiary for a total of two years with five years probation following. Pryor is also fined a total of $20,000.
Indictment in Criminal Case No. 14652: United States vs. Matthew S. Murray, defendant. Murray was the Director of Public Works for Kansas City, Missouri, and Missouri Administrator of the Works Progress Administration, and was charged in five counts with income tax evasion for the years 1934-1938. The indictment catalogs his sources of income and taxes paid for those years, as well as the outstanding tax amounts. Income sources include John J. Pryor, a Pendergast-affiliated contractor.
U.S. Attorney Maurice M. Milligan's opening statement in Criminal Case No. 14652: United States vs. Matthew S. Murray, defendant. Milligan notes that Murray filed tax returns in each of those years, for considerably less than his actual income, i.e. reporting net income of $3,500.85 in 1935, but actually receiving $14,576.88, and that he defrauded the government out of $6,577.29 in total over those five years.
Judgment in Criminal Case No. 14652: United States vs. Matthew S. Murray, defendant. Judge Albert L. Reeves' statement addresses the issue of whether certain payments are to be considered gifts, as the defendant claims, or compensation, which would be taxable, says that the deciding factor between the two is the intention of the parties involved, and suggests further inquiry into that question is required. Those payments were made by John J. Pryor, E. L. Schneider, and T. J.