Biles v. The Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 32 Pa. 529
• Parties: Biles versus The Commonwealth.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

32 Pa. 529

Biles versus The Commonwealth.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Remak, for the plaintiff in error, cited Wharton's Cr. Law, § 1498; People v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 409; Commonwealth v. Sankey, 10 Harris 390; Rex v. Ward, 2 East P. C. 862; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 117-18; Poultney v. Ross, 1 Dall. 239; Commonwealth v. Hayward, 10 Mass. 34; Whart. Cr. Law, § 1421; Id. § 1419; 3 Chit. Cr. L. 1038-9; Whart. Cr. Law, § 1438; United States v. Morrow, 4 W. C. C. R. 733; Barnum v. The State, 15 Ohio 717; Regina v. Green, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 555-6.

S. C. Perkins and Loughead, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth, cited Whart. Cr. Law, § 1498; Pennsylvania v. Misner, Add. 44; West v. The State, 2 Zab. 212; People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509; Wallace v. Harmstad, 3 Harris 467; Commonwealth v. Sankey, 10 Id. 390; 4 Bl. Com. 247; 2 East P. C. 861; Id. 949; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 103; 3 Chit. C. L. 1022; Powell v. Commonwealth, 11 Grattan 822; Rex v. Teague, 1 Cr. Cas. 35; Dawson's Case, 2 East P. C. 979; 3 Chit. C. L. 1042; Pennsylvania v. McKee, Add. 33; Rex v. Ward, 2 Str. 747; s. c., 2 Ld. Raym. 1461; Commonwealth v. Searle, 2 Binn. 337; Commonwealth v. Ray, 3 Gray 441; Regina v. Boult, 2 Car. & Kir. 604; Commonwealth v. Chandler, Thatcher's Cr. Cas. 187, Regina v. Sharman, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 553; Upfold v. Leit, 5 Esp. R. 100; Hawkeswood's Case, 1 Leach C. C. 257; Lee's Case, Id. 258; Morton's Case, 2 East P. C. 955; 2 Russ. on Cr. 340; Teague's Case, 2 East P. C. 979; Deakin's Case, 1 Sid. 142; Butler v. Commonwealth, 12 S. & R. 237; Kegg v. The State, 10 Ohio 75; Regina v. Fitchie, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 598; Regina v. Inder, 2 Car. & Kir. 635; 1 Hale P. C. 683; Barnum v. The State, 15 Ohio 717; Foster 116; 2 Russ. on Cr. 328; Rex v. Bontieu, R. & R. 260; Rex v. Peacock, Id. 278; Regina v. Bush, cited in 2 Car. & Kir. 531; People v. Peacock, 6 Cow. 72; Rex v. Webb, Bayley on Bills 432; Commonwealth v. Ayer, 3 Cush. 150; Commonwealth v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526; Rex v. Kinder, 2 East P. C. 856; Whart. Cr. L., § 1430; Commonwealth v. Smith, 6 S. & R. 568; Allen v. Coit, 6 Hill 318; Elliott's Case, 5 Bos. & Pul. 93, n.; Collicott's Case, 2 Leach C. C. 1048.

The opinion of the court was delivered by READ, J.

The defendant was the confidential clerk and book-keeper of Hoskins, Hieskell & Co., and he was indicted and convicted of having made a false and forged entry in the journal of the said firm, with intent to defraud his said employers. The forgery consisted in a false addition of one figure in the amount of cash received from bills receivable, in the month of August 1856, and in the alteration of another true figure in said addition. The true addition was $6455.63, while the false addition was $5955.63, the first figure 5 being an alteration of the original figure in the addition, which was a 6. The result of this forgery was to represent the cash received five hundred dollars less than the actual amount; and, of course, to enable their clerk to abstract that sum from the funds of the firm.

The three principal books of a mercantile house are the day book, journal, and ledger. The ledger is the chief or grand book of accounts, to which all the others are subservient. It is the principal book of accounts among merchants, into which the accounts of the journal are carried in a summary form. A false entry in the day book, necessarily produces a false entry in the journal and ledger; whilst a false entry in the journal, results in a corresponding false entry in the ledger, in a condensed form.

In this case, the ledger, which is the book consulted for the state of the accounts, would represent the cash received from bills receivable, in the month of August 1856, as five hundred dollars less than the true amount.

The facts of the forgery have been found by the jury, and that it was done with intent to defraud this firm of Hoskins, Hieskell & Co.

We have read carefully the very able opinion of the court below, and the whole subject has been exhausted, in the very elaborate written and oral arguments before us. With all these lights we are unable to see, that this false entry does not amount to forgery, and one of the most dangerous character to the community. For if false entries in the books of a mercantile firm, can be made by a confidential clerk and book-keeper, with impunity, then all confidence in their...