Pearce v. United States

192 F. 561, 113 C.C.A. 33, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4889
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 19, 1911
DocketNo. 2,270
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 192 F. 561 (Pearce 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
Pearce v. United States, 192 F. 561, 113 C.C.A. 33, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4889 (5th Cir. 1911).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[ 1 ] The plaintiff in error complains that a preliminary ruling of the trial judge restricting the number of peremptory challenges to which he was entitled was erroneous; but he makes no complaint that any juror who tried him was unfair or partial, or that any particular juror who tried him was objectionable to him or would have been peremptorily challenged but for the ruling complained of-It follows that, if the ruling complained of was erroneous, it was harmless.

[Z] The right of peremptory challenge of jurors is one to reject, and not to select. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80.

[If] The plaintiff in error was the cashier of the First National Bank of Robert Eee, Tex., and as such was chargeable with knowledge of the books of the bank, and it was not error to allow the contents of said books to be proved on the trial.

[4] In each of the two counts of the indictment on which the plaintiff in error was convicted, the charge is willful misapplication of the funds of the bank by discounting worthless and unsecured notes for his own use; and therefore the only intent necessary to be proved was that the plaintiff in error did the acts complained of purposely or designedly.

[5, 6] As a matter of law, it was immaterial whether the plaintiff in error believed himself solvent or insolvent. The real issue was whether the plaintiff in error applied the funds of the bank to discount unsecured notes that he knew or should have known to be worthless. The general reputation of the parties who made the worthless notes or paper discounted by the plaintiff in error was irrelevant.

From a cáreful examination of the charge of the trial judge and also of the requests to charge which were refused, we conclude that in the matter of instructions to the jury the plaintiff in error has no cause to complain.

In the record we find no reversible error, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. John R. Adamson, III
665 F.2d 649 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
State v. Sanchez
265 P.2d 684 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1954)
Lowenstein v. Federal Rubber Co.
85 F.2d 129 (Eighth Circuit, 1936)
Hoffman v. United States
20 F.2d 328 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
United States v. Jenks
264 F. 697 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1920)
Heitler v. United States
244 F. 140 (Seventh Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 F. 561, 113 C.C.A. 33, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearce-v-united-states-ca5-1911.