Donegan v. United States

296 F. 843, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1924
DocketNo. 4118
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 296 F. 843 (Donegan v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donegan v. United States, 296 F. 843, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422 (5th Cir. 1924).

Opinion

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Arthur E. Donegan, was convicted on the first and second counts of an indictment found in March, 1919, against him, A. W. Gustus, and Paul K. Weaver. The first count, after alleging that Donegan was the president of the First National Bank of St. Cloud, Ela. (herein called the St. Cloud bank), on the 16th day of August, 1916, charged that on that day he did willfully, etc.—

“abstract certain of the moneys, funds, and credits of said national hanking association, to wit, the sum of twenty thousand seven hundred sixty and seventy-seven hundredths dollars ($20,760.77) in the manner and by the means following, that is to say: That on the said 16th day of August, 1916, the said Arthur E. Donegan did willfully, wrongfully and unlawfully draw and place, and cause to be drawn and placed in the Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee, Ela., a certain deposit ticket in the words and figures following, to wit: ‘Deposited in the Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee, Florida, by Arthur E. Donegan, trustee, August 16, 1916, .checks * * * St. Cloud $20,760.77’— and that and after making and placing in said Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee, Fla., of said deposit ticket, and by means thereof, there was taken from the moneys, funds, and credits of the said B'irst National Bank of St. Cloud, Fla., then on deposit in said Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee, Fla., and placed to the credit of Arthur E. Douegan, trustee, the said sum of twenty thousand, seven hundred sixty and 77/100 ($20.760.77) bv the direction and authority of the said Arthur E. Donegan, as such president as aforesaid, a more particular description of said moneys, funds, and credits being to the jurors unknown, and said sum of money was thereby abstracted from said First National Bank of St. Cloud, B'la., and was wholly lost to said First National Bank of St. Cloud.”

[845]*845The second count charged that Donegan, being such president, did on the same date willfully, etc.—

“misapply certain of the moneys, funds, and credits of said national banking association, to wit, the sum of twenty thousand seven hundred sixty and 77/100 dollars (¡¡¡20,700.77) in the manner and by the means following, that is to say: That the said Arthur E. Donegan as such president as aforesaid of said national banking association did on the said 16th day of August, 1016, willfully, wrongfully, unlawfully, and with intent to injure and defraud said national banking association and said divers other persons to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, then and there by means of a certain deposit ticket dated August 16, 191G, place and cause to be placed to his credit as trustee in the Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee, Jfla., the said sum of twenty thousand seven hundred sixty and 77/100 dollars (¡¡>20,760.77) of the moneys, funds, and credits of the said hirst National Bank of St. Cloud, Fla., for the use, benefit, and gain of him, the said Arthur E. Donegan, and said other persons to the grand jurors unknown, whic-li said sum was thereby then and there converted to the use, benefit, and advantage of him, the said Arthur E. Donegan, and said other persons to the jurors unknown, and was wholly lost to said First National Bank of St. Cloud, Fla.”

Each of the counts charged that Gustus and Weaver aided and abetted Donegan in the commission of the offense charged. The court overruled demurrers to each of those counts. It was contended that each of the counts was defective in that it did not sufficiently allege the means whereby the abstraction or misapplication was accomplished, and that it was impossible for Donegan to abstract or misapply the money or credits of the St. Cloud bank by the means alleged. Each of the counts undertakes to charge an offense denounced by R. S. § 5209 (Comp. St. § 9772).' As the words “abstracts or willfully misapplies,” used in that statute, have no settled technical meaning, an indictment charging an abstraction or misapplication of moneys, funds, or credits of a national bank must be supplemented by further averments showing the manner or means whereby the abstraction or misapplication was made, and that it was an unlawful one. Batechelor v. United States, 156 U. S. 426; Rieger v. United States, 107 Fed. 916.

The first count charged in effect that the alleged abstracting was done by Donegan drawing and placing, and causing to be drawn and placed, in the Citizens’ Bank of Kissimmee (herein called the Kissimmee bank) a copied deposit slip. That deposit slip on its face purported to evidence the deposit to Donegan’s credit of “checks * * * St. Cloud, $20,760.77.” A deposit to one’s credit in a bank of checks is a means of bringing about the withdrawal of tire amounts of the ¡checks from the balances to the credit of the makers thereof and placing such amounts to the credit of the depositor. An amount to the credit of one bank depositor may be abstracted as a result of his checks being deposited to the credit of another depositor. The allegations charge the doing of acts ordinarily having the result of transferring credits from one or more depositors to another. We think that each of the counts sufficiently shows how the alleged abstraction or misapplication was effected, that they could be so effected, and that error was not committed in overruling the demurrers to those counts. The absence of a specific allegation to the effect that the language of the deposit slip, “Checks * * * St. Cloud,” meant checks drawn by the St. Cloud bank did not keep the allegations made from having the effect of showing how the charged abstraction and misapplication were made.

[846]*846 Evidence to the following effect was included in that introduced by the government: At the time mentioned in the indictment D'onegan was president of both the St. Cloud bank and the Kissimmee bank, Gustus was the cashier of the St. Cloud bank, and Weaver was the cashier of the Kissimmee bank. A by-law of the St. Cloud bank required its checks to be signed by its president and cashier. , The direfctors of that bank did not, on or prior to August 16’, 1916, authorize Donegan, Gustus, or Weaver to withdraw from the funds to its credit with the Kissimmee bank the sum of $20,760.77, of any like amount. One Gedge, who became cashier of the Kissimmee bank after August 16, 1916, identified the transfer individual ledger of that bank as a book of its customer’s accounts and a part of the records of that bank.

H. S. Bullock testified to the following effect: During the period beginning in September, 1915, and ending in October, 1917, witness was paying and receiving teller, and one Woodham, who is now dead, was bookkeeper of the Kissimmee bank. The transfer individual ledger of 'the Kissimmee bánk pointed out by witness is a part of the records of that bank that were kept while witness was with it. Some of the entries in the account in that book of the St. Cloud bank with the Kissimmee bank were made by witness and some were made by Wood-ham, who kept most of the accounts in that book. The entries- made by witness and Woódham were made in the regular course of duty. Witness is unable to say who made the last entries in the account of the St. Cloud bank.

Thereupon the government introduced in. evidence without objection the following entries in the account of the St. Cloud, bank with the Kissimmee bank, as shown in said book:

Thereupon the government introduced, without objection, the following entries in the account of Arthur É.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. State
1928 OK CR 128 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1928)
State v. Thornton
214 N.W. 279 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Bishop v. United States
16 F.2d 406 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
State v. Johnson
210 N.W. 353 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
Craig v. United States
5 F.2d 275 (Ninth Circuit, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 F. 843, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donegan-v-united-states-ca5-1924.