McKnight v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 936. |
| Citation | 111 F. 735 |
| Parties | McKNIGHT v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
A. E Richards and W. C. P. Breckenridge, for plaintiff in error.
R. D Hill, for the United States.
Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.
This case, upon a former writ of error, was before this court at its October term, 1899, and is reported in 38 C.C.A. 115, 97 F. 208. At the second trial of the case the plaintiff in error was convicted upon two counts, numbered 39 in the indictment in case No. 5,782, and 2 in indictment in case No 5,783. These counts severally charge McKnight with embezzlement of the funds of a bank. Upon the trial the court was requested to charge the jury that the defendant could not be found guilty unless the jury believed that the acts of embezzlement were committed with the fraudulent intent charged in the indictment. In both the counts under consideration the embezzlements were charged to be with the intent to injure and defraud the bank, in this respect using the language of section 5209, Rev. St. U.S., defining the offense. The court, however, refused so to do, being of the opinion that the language of the statute requiring the criminal acts to be done with intent to injure or defraud the association did not apply to the offense of embezzlement.
This section (5209) undertakes to provide, in the first instance for the acts of certain officers of the association,-- president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent,-- whose acts are made criminal by the section. These acts are defined to include embezzlement, abstraction or willful misapplication of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association, or, without authority from the directors, issuing or putting in circulation the notes of the association, or, without such authority, issuing or putting forth any certificate of deposit, or drawing any order or bill of exchange, making any acceptance, assigning any note, bond, draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree, or making any false entry in any book, report, or statement to the association, with intent, in either case, to injure or defraud the association, etc. 'In either case' obviously includes all or any of the acts which have been previously denounced as criminal when done by one of the officers named, and one of them is embezzlement of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association. These acts are criminal only when done with the intent which the statute has made an essential element of the offense. This is the natural interpretation of the language used, and has been the uniform holding of the courts of the United States, in construing this section, so far as we are advised. U.S. v. Britton, 107 U.S. 655, 2 Sup.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 520, in which case the supreme court said that the intention to injure and defraud is an essential ingredient to every offense specified in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinds v. Territory of Arizona
... ... Thompson v. State, 26 Ark. 330; ... Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Cochran v ... United States, 157 U.S. 290, 15 S.Ct. 628, 39 L.Ed. 705 ... To the ... end that an indictment ... Page, 116 Cal. 386, 48 P. 326 ... Intent ... to defraud must be alleged. McKnight v. United ... States, 111 F. 735; United States v. Carll, 105 ... U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United ... ...
-
United States v. Cawthon, 7024.
...offense of willful misapplication, Britton v. U. S., supra, and must be alleged. McCallum v. U. S., 8 Cir., 247 F. 27, 35; McKnight v. U. S., 6 Cir., 111 F. 735. The section under which this indictment is brought is a 1948 revision of former Section 592, Title 12, U.S.C. The above cited cas......
-
McGregor v. United States
... ... the intent with which an act is done is inferred from the ... result of the act itself, and the law presumes that every man ... intends the legitimate consequence of his own acts. Agnew ... v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 17 Sup.Ct. 235, 41 L.Ed ... 624; McKnight v. United States, 111 F. 735, 49 ... C.C.A. 594. It is, we think, quite clear, when all of the ... instructions given by the court to the jury are taken into ... consideration, in connection with the testimony which renders ... them applicable, that the court, by the instruction ... ...
-
Billingsley v. United States
... ... can be thwarted ... We ... would not have deemed it necessary to dwell on this ... proposition except for the contention of defendant's ... counsel that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for ... the Sixth Circuit, in McKnight v. United States, 49 ... C.C.A. 594, 111 F. 735, and the United States Supreme Court, ... in United States v. Britton, supra, have taken a different ... In the ... former case the Court of Appeals said: ... 'These ... acts (made criminal by section 5209) are defined to ... ...