United States v. Young

128 F. 111, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 330
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedFebruary 18, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 128 F. 111 (United States v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Young, 128 F. 111, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 330 (M.D. Ala. 1904).

Opinion

JONES,. District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The gravamen of all the counts, stripped of legal phraseology, is that the cashier or teller, as the case may be, made false - entries on the books of the aggregate of his “cash items,” by including therein a particular [113]*113item, based upon paper which was “worthless, valueless and fraudulent,” and known to be so at the time of the entry, etc., with intent to deceive, etc. Does such an entry constitute a false entry, within the meaning of section 5209 of the Revised Statutes? If the entry was not false within the meaning of the section, it is hardly necessary to say that the making of it, with intent to deceive or defraud, etc., would not constitute an offense under the section. The intent with which the entry was made is wholly inconsequential, in that view.

In the first part of section 5209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3497] Congress made embezzlement, abstraction, and willful misapplication of the money, funds, and credit of any national banking association, and other specific acts, by which the funds or credit of a national banking association could be unlawfully imperiled, criminal offenses against the United States; and then, at the end of the section, created the offense of making “any false entry” with intent to deceive, etc. At the same time, and in the act of which this section forms a part, Congress enacted very comprehensive regulations for the business of national banking associations. This act, carried forward in appropriate sections of the Revised Statutes, invests the Comptroller of the Currency with large visitorial power over them, empowers him, among other things, to appoint examiners to ascertain and report upon their condition, to appoint receivers of such associations, in certain contingencies, and also to call upon them for special reports, according to forms prescribed by the Comptroller, showing their condition, etc., and requires these reports to be published in the place -where the bank does business — all this that the public, as well as the government, may be informed of the condition of the bank, and act accordingly in their dealings with it. Having thus enacted safeguards for the preservation of the funds and credit of the association, and declared criminal penalties for transgression of regulations in those respects, Congress did not have to 'go over, and cannot be held by any legitimate construction to have intended to go over, the same ground, when it created the offense of making “any false entry.” The several misdemeanors which the section creates apply to separate and distinct offenses. Clearly, that part of the section which creates the offense of making “any false entry” was not designed to cover other criminal breaches of duty, for which the law had already provided in prior parts of the section; but had other objects in view.

One important purpose of this provision as to “any false entry” was undoubtedly to stimulate integrity on the part of the officials in the conduct of their business. This the provision secures, as far as law can effect such a result, by forbidding bank officers, under penalties, to misstate by “any false entry” what they do. Another dominant purpose was, by enforcing true entries, to spread upon the books of the bank accurate statements of things done by the bank officers, to the end that bank examiners might be the better enabled thereby to trace and determine accurately, day by day, the actual condition and conduct of the business of the bank. The duty with which we are here concerned is the duty not to enter a false statement of the aggregate amount of “cash items.” The cashier’s books are not intended to furnish, and are not kept to show, the history or the origin of paper [114]*114taken by the cashier, whether received in good or bad fRith,-or “worthless and fraudulent.” Other parts of the section had provided penalties for breaches of duty in this respect by persons handling the bank’s cash. The sole purpose of this provision is fully accomplished if the item included in the “cash items” is truthfully based on any actual transaction with the cashier, which increases or diminishes the cash in his hands. The demand of this provision is that when a check, though “worthless and fraudulent,” whether knowingly received or not, is received by the cashier, that the amount paid out on account of it, the particular — the detail — on which the item in his cash account is based, shall be truly stated. Obedience to that command, truly making the entry, though the history of the check and the cashier’s dealing with it may bring him under condemnation of other provisions, cannot make him a transgressor against this provision.

If we stop a moment to consider what the “item” is which must enter into the cash statement, it will be seen at once that the good or bad faith in which the paper is taken, or its value or worthlessness, cannot determine whether the entry of the “item” as to it, or its inclusion under the aggregate of “cash items,” is true or false, in the sense of this provision of tlie statute. One of the meanings of item is, “an article; single entry; anything which can form part of a detail; the particulars of an account.” The detail, or particular here — the “item” — is on what account the sum stated has been paid out. This check is the thing which forms part of the detail — the “item” — which shows what was done with the bank’s money as to it. The inclusion in the cash of a perfectly good check drawn on the bank, if that check has not in fact entered into any transaction of the cashier upon which he parted with money of the bank, would constitute a “false entry,” if included in the “cash items” with intent to deceive. On the other hand, knowingly entering or including in the “cash items” an item based on a “valueless and fraudulent” check, if it were in fact received in a transaction with the cashier at the time the entry is made, and he paid out the amount of money included in the “item” on account of it, and truly entered or included the item in his “cash item,” could not constitute a false entry. It is immaterial here, therefore, whether or not the check was in fact “worthless and fraudulent.”

The cashier, by including the item here in his “cash items,” did not declare or' represent that the check upon which the item was based was good or supported by honest consideration. The entry makes no representation whatever as to that. The legal effect of the entry is but a written .representation to whom it may concern that the cashier, in an actual transaction, had received the check, and that the amount stated was the basis of one item, which went with others to make up the aggregate “cash items” which the entry declared the cashier had at the time. The r.everal counts assail the truth of the entry solely on the ground that the amount of one of the items which entered into the aggregate “cash items” was based on a check or paper which was fraudulent and worthless, and known to be so at the time of the entry. The cashier in that event would be equally bound, as in the case of a good check bona fide received, in stating his-transactions upon the books, to make a proper “cash item” as to such check, irrespective [115]*115of its being taken in- good faith, or knowingly received in bad faith. The several counts do not deny that the truth had been stated in the entry, or that the check upon which the item was based had been received by the cashier in an actual transaction with the bank.

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

Related

United States v. Samuel L. Hardin
841 F.2d 694 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
State v. Funkhouser
637 P.2d 974 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
State v. Heron
381 P.2d 764 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1963)
John Wayne Meredith v. United States
238 F.2d 535 (Fourth Circuit, 1956)
House v. United States
78 F.2d 296 (Sixth Circuit, 1935)
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Bardolph
169 A. 574 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
United States v. Darby
2 F. Supp. 378 (D. Maryland, 1933)
Cravens v. United States
62 F.2d 261 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Cooper v. United States
13 F.2d 16 (Fourth Circuit, 1926)
Mitchell v. Commonwealth
127 S.E. 368 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1925)
Breckenridge v. Weber Dry Goods Company
268 S.W. 593 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F. 111, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-young-almd-1904.