Gallagher v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 January 1906 |
| Docket Number | 597. |
| Citation | 144 F. 87 |
| Parties | GALLAGHER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Oscar Storer (Stebbins, Storer & Burbank, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
William H. Lewis and Guy A. Ham, Asst. U.S. Attys. (Melvin O. Adams U.S. Atty., on the brief).
Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.
This is an indictment founded upon section 5415 of the United States Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3662), which makes it an offense to counterfeit or imitate the circulating notes of banking associations. The indictment, as is usual where the offense charged is that of passing false or counterfeit notes alleges that the note in question was passed knowing the same to be falsely made. Under the statute, knowledge is an essential element of the offense, and must be proved. The point was taken that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant knew the note in question was false when he passed it, and the defendant excepted to the instructions of the court that the passing was a circumstance by which the jury might infer knowledge that it was a counterfeit, if they thought that inference should be drawn.
Ordinarily and as a general rule, there should be some evidence of knowledge, circumstantial or otherwise, aside from that which results from evidence of the naked fact that the spurious paper was passed. There can, of course, be no absolute or general rule as to what the evidence should be. It might perhaps, result from a description of the appearance of the party when the money was passed, like evidence showing an attempt to disguise personal identity. There might, therefore, be something in the transaction itself sufficiently tending to show guilt to answer the requirements of the rule. The fact of knowledge may be proven in a variety of ways. There should, however, always be some evidence tending to show knowledge beyond that which results from mere proof that the spurious bill was passed. This rule results from the nature of the transaction, because, as is very well known, spurious notes are so skillfully fashioned that one might naturally and innocently, as is oftentimes the case, receive and pass them in the whirl of business. In such a case intent and guilty knowledge within the meaning of the statute would be absent. Hence the rule requiring something more than evidence of the mere passage of the counterfeit paper. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient or not, in this respect, need not now be determined, as the case is disposed of favorably to the defendant upon other grounds. It would seem, however, that the instruction upon this branch of the case should have been more comprehensive in its requirements and that the jury should have been told that there must be something in the relations of the parties, or in the field of circumstances, aside from the mere fact of passing the note, tending to show that Gallagher knew the note was spurious; and that the circumstantial evidence, together with the direct evidence as to passing it and the evidential circumstances, if any, attending the act, must be sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the note was bad.
There was evidence on the part of the government introduced for the apparent purpose of showing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacDonald v. United States
... ... dealing with a similar question and citing many authorities ... In that case (144 F. 20, 75 C.C.A. 172, 7 Ann.Cas. 62) is a ... pertinent discussion of the proper limits of ... cross-examination, when the defendant offers himself as a ... witness. See, also, Gallagher v. United States, 144 ... F. 87, 75 C.C.A. 245-- a case of another defendant involved ... in the same transaction, where some similar questions are ... discussed by Judge Aldrich ... Putting ... the defendant's contention at its strongest, the evidence ... may by the jury have been ... ...
-
United States v. Releford, 16078.
...798 (C.A.6, 1927) cert. den. 275 U.S. 571, 48 S.Ct. 159, 72 L. Ed. 432 and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Gallagher v. United States, 144 F. 87 (C.A.1, 1906); United States v. Ruffino, 67 F.2d 440, 441 (C.A. 2, 1933), we believe that the cumulative effect of the proven acts and t......
-
Andrews v. United States
...circumstances, including a false explanation, may be sufficient, Zottarelli v. United States, 6 Cir., 20 F.2d 795. See Gallagher v. United States, 1 Cir., 144 F. 87. Here Andrews was in possession of the forgeries soon after they were dated, issued to persons other than himself and not indo......
-
Marson v. United States, 11617.
...v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; and the evidence of such knowledge has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; Gallagher v. United States, 1 Cir., 144 F. 87. In this case, however, there is evidence of more than mere possession and the passing of the counterfeit money on the part of ......