Carlisle v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 February 1912
• Docket Number: 1,041.
• Citation: 194 F. 827
• Parties: CARLISLE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

194 F. 827

CARLISLE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1,041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 7, 1912

Fred. H. Dominick and Cole L. Blease, for plaintiff in error.

Ernest F. Cochran, U.S. Atty.

Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and McDOWELL, District judge.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the court below on an indictment containing 162 counts, charging violations of sections 5208 and 5209, Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3497). The first count charges that he, as president of the National Bank of Newberry, in the district of South Carolina, misapplied certain money of that bank by means of a check drawn by him on his general account as a depositor. The counts from 2 to 73, inclusive, are founded on other checks of his, drawn on the same account payable to other parties, of various dates and amounts. Counts 74 to 93, inclusive, charge similar misapplication by means of checks drawn by him on said bank, on a different account, payable to a number of payees, of various dates and amounts. Counts 94 to 146, inclusive, are based on checks drawn by the plaintiff in error as president and treasurer of the Cold Point Granite Company, and paid by the bank. Counts 147 to 151, inclusive, charge him with misapplying the funds of the bank by means of certain notes and checks specially described in said counts. Counts 152, 153, and 154 relate to certain drafts of the Cold Point Granite Company, drawn on separate drawees, charged as being worthless, paid by the bank, whereby its money was misapplied. Counts 155 to 160 inclusive, charge the defendant below with misapplying various sums of money, by turning the same over to said Cold Point Granite Company, under the guise of loans by means of worthless notes, and by collecting various sums of money from different parties which was misapplied. Counts 161 and 162 are based on section 5208, as amended by Act July 12, 1882 (22 Stat. 166), in which he is charged, as president of said bank, with certifying checks drawn by a depositor, when the amounts of such checks were not to the credit of such party on the books of the bank.

The defendant below was convicted on five counts of said indictment, viz., 152, 153, 154, 159, and 160, and was sentenced by the trial judge to be imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga., for the term of five years.

When the case was called for trial in the court below, the attorneys for the plaintiff in error moved the court to quash the indictment on the following grounds:

'On account of the numerous counts contained therein, that being that the indictment was handed the grand jury on October 21, 1909, and was returned by them on the same day marked 'True Bill,' the indictment containing 162 distinct and separate counts, composing 342 closely typewritten pages, and that consequently it was a physical impossibility for the jury to have read this indictment or to have taken sufficient testimony upon each of the separate counts to have intelligently formed a basis for the return of a true bill.

'Furthermore, because it is burdensome beyond question and hardly possible for any petit jury to take this indictment and take the testimony that will be necessary, the verbal testimony and the written testimony that will be necessary, and to distinguish at one time between these different counts, and to form an intelligent opinion upon which the defendant should be convicted, and upon which he should be acquitted, and therefore the natural prejudice will lean against the defendant for the jury to write either a sweeping charge one way or the other, without a proper and intelligent consideration of the different counts in this indictment, and

'Furthermore, because the defendant in this court, or in any other court, with an indictment like that presented against him, it is hardly possible for him to prepare his defense in such a way as to present to a jury the testimony necessary to explain all of these counts, and that therefore it is burdensome, and it is an unnecessary hardship, and almost reaches the point of torture, to hand out an indictment of that kind against any man, and compel him to come into a court of justice and attempt to make answer before a jury. We take the position that this indictment should have been separated, and that this man should have been indicted only in one indictment, under such transactions as connect him with the different allegations thereof.'

In reply to this motion, and argument of counsel thereon, the court below...