While the appellants insist that the court below erred in admitting, for example, the laundry bag and the hat on the ground that there was no proof that the laundry bag and the hat in the Oldsmobile were in fact used by the appellants in the course of the robbery, nonetheless it is our opinion that the identifications of the items admitted were legally sufficient. Caldwell v. United States, 338 F.2d 385 (8 Cir. 1964); Pearson v. United States, 192 F.2d 681 (6 Cir. 1951); United States v. Brazzell, 187 F.2d 878 (7 Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 849, 72 S.Ct. 73, 96 L.Ed. 641 (1951), rehearing denied, 342 U.S. 889, 72 S.Ct. 171, 96 L. Ed. 667 (1951); White v. United States, 200 F.2d 509 (5 Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 999, 73 S.Ct. 1142, 97 L.Ed. 1405 (1953), rehearing denied, 346 U.S. 843, 74 S.Ct. 17, 98 L.Ed. 363 (1953). For the sake of brevity further discussion respecting the problems presented by the articles taken from the automobile and admitted in evidence is set out in the footnote.

This Court now holds that a valid separate offense may be charged under either statute notwithstanding the widely disparate punishment provisions. In United States v. Bazzell, 187 F.2d 878 (7th Cir. 1951), the defendants were found guilty of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The defendants appealed, arguing that section 1201(c) had repealed section 371 with respect to conspiracy to kidnap, and the indictment therefore had been defective.

The conspiracy remains none the less a crime because by its success an additional crime has been committed. . . . Consequently, the substantive offense is not merged in the charge of conspiracy, . . . and the parties may be punished for their agreement to commit a crime as well as for the completed crime." United States v. Bazzell, 187 F.2d 878, 884 (7th Cir. 1951). Alternatively, the defendants contend that the conspiracy counts cannot stand, asserting that the distinguishing element — the agreement among the defendants to commit the substantive offenses — was not proven. The gist of defendants contention in this regard is that no independent evidence was offered to show the existence of an agreement to violate the Dyer Act, and that the government's evidence was limited to proof of substantive offenses alleged in the indictment.

He says that because the indictment did not specify these reasons, the defendants could only be convicted for holding the Jeppes for ransom or reward. United States v. Varner, 7 Cir., 1961, 283 F.2d 900; United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 878. Kidnapping to prevent capture is not considered holding for ransom or reward.

There is no merit to this contention. It is well settled that when a conspiracy is charged, the trial court has jurisdiction if any overt act in furtherance thereof is committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, even though other overt acts be alleged to have occurred elsewhere. Moomaw v. United States, 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 589; United States v. Cohen, 3 Cir., 197 F.2d 26; Kott v. United States, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 984; Ladner v. United States, 5 Cir., 168 F.2d 771; United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878. Count one of the indictment specifically alleged overt acts committed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and the appellant was therefore properly indicted and tried in that jurisdiction. It is contended that the indictment is fatally defective because (1) it does not set forth the method, manner and means by which the conspiracy was formed and accomplished; and (2) it is duplicitous for the reason that the substantive counts charged more than one offense, that is, that he "did transport, bring and import" constituted one crime; "caused to be transported" charged a second crime, and "aided, abetted and assisted in the transportation" charged a third crime.

The trial court instructed the jury that if appellant aided or abetted in the crimes charged in Counts 1 and 2, he should be found guilty as a principal; yet the jury, by finding the appellant not guilty on Counts 1 and 2, concluded that appellant neither posted the extortion letters nor aided or abetted Foley in so doing. We recognize that the general rule is that the verdict of a jury need not be consistent as between different counts, United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 884, yet the situation at bar is closely analagous to that which gave this court considerable concern in United States v. Rosenblum, 176 F.2d 321. There Chief Judge Major stated, in 176 F.2d at page 330: "Any difference between concerted action to commit an act and participation in a joint enterprise to commit the same act is not discernible to me." Count 1 charged that appellant and Foley deposited an extortion letter in the United States mails on June 22, 1951; Count 2 charged that they deposited a second extortion letter in the United States mails on June 25, 1951. Thus the conspiracy charged was that they unlawfully schemed, planned, confederated and combined together to deposit in the United States mails two extortion letters, one on June 22 and one on June 25, 1951. Hence, if they conspired, the conspiracy was complete on June 25 at the time the second letter was deposited in the United States mails.

See to same effect Robinson v. United States, 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 4, 9, 10, wherein it was pointed out that nothing in the Sealfon case applies to verdicts which are all received at the same time in a single trial. See also Pilgreen v. United States, 8 Cir., 157 F.2d 427, 428. Cf. Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 242, 246; United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 884. In Coplin v. United States, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 652, 661, it was held that, inasmuch as verdicts on different counts in an indictment need not be consistent, acquittal on a count charging conspiracy did not have the effect of preventing the acts of each defendant from being admissible against others under a substantive count not charging conspiracy.

The statute as we have indicated extends to cases where a person is kidnapped by any means and unlawfully restrained "in order that the captor might secure some benefit to himself." State v. Strauser, supra; Brooks v. United States, 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 336; United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878; Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158. Counsel argues that the rule could result in a conviction where a person removes a child against his will from danger or for other proper purpose.

Counsel for both sides are agreed the Federal courts have had no trouble interpreting the word "otherwise" in this context to mean the statute prohibits interstate transportation of kidnapped persons for specific purposes other than pecuniary gain, thereby rejecting the ejusdem generis rule. See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F. Supp. 450, 453, affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 857, 860, certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642, 59 S.Ct. 1044, 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant's reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging). Defendant does not dispute the validity of the Federal decisions; rather, as evidenced by his arguments, he questions only the applicability of such Federal interpretation to the questioned phrase as found in the Arizona statute.