Allis v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 November 1894
• Docket Number: No. 661,661
• Citation: 155 U.S. 117,15 S.Ct. 36,39 L.Ed. 91
• Parties: ALLIS v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

155 U.S. 117

15 S.Ct. 36

39 L.Ed. 91

ALLIS

v UNITED STATES.

No. 661.

November 12, 1894.

On May 13, 1893, the grand jury of the United States for the Western division of the Eastern district of Arkansas presented an indictment against Horace G. Allis under section 5209 of the Revised Statutes.This section, so far as is material to this case, reads as follows:

'Every president * * * of any association * * * who makes any false entry in any book * * * of the association * * * with intent * * * to injure or defraud the association or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of any such association * * * shall be deemed guilty,' etc.

The indictment consisted of 25 counts.The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the case came on for trial on November 27, 1893.This trial resulted in a verdict of guilty on the fourteenth count, upon which verdict the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of five years.The particular charge in that count was the making of an entry in February, 1892, on the books of the First National Bank of Little Rock, of which defendant was the president, of the sum of $50,000 to the credit of his individual account.To reverse the judgment and sentence against him, the defendant sued out a writ of error from this court.

John R. Dos Passos, A. H. Garland, and Thos. B. Martin, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

Mr. Justice BREWERdelivered the opinion of the court.

The meager record gives us little information as to the merits of this case, and presents but few questions for our con- sideration.As the verdict was sustained by the trial judge, we must assume that the testimony, only a small portion of which is before us, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant, and unless error is disclosed in the special matters presented to our consideration the judgment must be affirmed.

Upon the trial the court, over the objections of the defendant, permitted a witness, from an examination of the books of the bank, to testify to the condition of the defendant's private account from February to December, 1892.It is insisted that this testimony was calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant; that the items of the entire account were not in issue; that they were not within the scope of the indictment; and that, therefore, the defendant's attention had not been called to them, and he could not be prepared to defend against them.There are two sufficient answers to these objections: (1) While the defendant was found guilty only on one, he was being tried on 25 counts, which counts charged false entries at different times running from February to December, and therefore testimony was competent as to the condition of his account stretching through the entire time.(2) The gravamen of this offense is the false entry with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive, and it was competent to show the state of the defendant's account, not merely at the very day the false entry was made, but also before and after that date, for the purpose of throwing light on the intent with which it was made.

Again, a bookkeeper, having testified to the making of false entries under the direction of the defendant, was asked on cross-examination whether a report prepared by him in September, in the absence of the defendant from the state, did not contain the identical false entry subsequently found in the December report, the making of which last entry was the offense charged in one of the counts of the indictment.The court refused to permit an answer to this question.As the jury did not find the defendant guilty on that count, and as the question related to matters occurring more than six months after the false entry of which he was found guilty, and to an entirely different transaction, it is obvious that the defendant was not prejudiced by the ruling.

It is further insisted that the court erred in permitting the translation of a cipher telegram from the defendant to be received in evidence and read to the jury.It is sufficient to say, in respect to this matter, that no exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court, and, indeed, no objections were made to the admission of the testimony after all the preliminary proofs had been received.

The other errors complained of are in the charge to the jury.It appears from the bill of exceptions that, after the jury had been deliberating for several hours on the case, the court called them into the court room and inquired if they had reached a verdict.On being informed that they had not, the court asked if there was any portion of the charge the re-reading of which would be of any assistance to them.To which question the foreman responded that a portion thereof was not fully understood by all of the jury, to wit, that in reference to the weight of the testimony of the witnesses.Thereupon the court re-read that portion.It further stated that the jury were at liberty to conduct their deliberations as they chose, but that he would call their attention again to the part of the charge relating to the fourteenth, fifteenth, eighth, and ninth counts of the indictment, and proceeded to re-read that part.In the portion re-read, after a reference to the alleged false credit of $50,000, was this language: 'And if he caused these entries to be made, with what intent did he do so?If a customer or friend of yours who owed you $40,000 on account should come to you and tell you that he had deposited $50,000 to your credit in the German National Bank of Little Rock, and that he wanted a receipt for the $40,000 that he owed you, and wanted a credit for the other $10,000, and you should give him the receipt and the credit, and should subsequently learn that he had never deposited one dollar in that bank for you, with what intent would you conclude he had made these statements?Would you think it was with an honest purpose, or with some intent to injure or defraud you?'

The bill of exceptions also contains other...