Pattison v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 4307.,4307. |
| Citation | 2 F.2d 14 |
| Parties | PATTISON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Alfred P. Dobson and John J. Beckman, both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error.
John S. Coke, U. S. Atty., and J. O. Stearns, Jr., both of Portland, Or., for the United States.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
On May 5, 1919, Pattison and Mann were indicted jointly for willfully misapplying moneys of a Federal Reserve Bank in Oregon. The charge against Pattison was that he knowingly and unlawfully aided and abetted Mann, who was a director and cashier of the bank. The statute under which the indictment was drawn (section 5209, 40 Stat. p. 972, Act Sept. 26, 1918 Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 9772) provides that any officer of a Federal Reserve bank who willfully misapplies any of the money of such bank with intent to defraud the bank or deceive any person, and every person who, with like intent, aids or abets any officer in violation of the section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. On July 7, 1919, at the regular July term of the United States District Court at Portland, Or., Pattison, who was present with his counsel, pleaded guilty. Thereafter on July 12, 1919, at the same term of court, Mann pleaded not guilty and upon trial was acquitted. Thereafter, on October 31, 1919, during the July term, judgment was rendered, fining Pattison $500, and ordering that he be committed to jail until the fine be paid, or until he be discharged, according to law, and allowing him 30 days from October 31, 1919, within which to pay the fine, and on December 1, 1919, during the November, 1919, term, the court allowed Pattison 30 days' additional time within which to pay the fine theretofore imposed. This extended the time for payment to January 1, 1920.
More than three years afterwards, during the regular July, 1923, term of court, the district attorney asked for an order for a bench warrant for the arrest of Pattison; it appearing that stay of the service of the commitment which had previously been ordered by the court had long since expired and the fine had not been paid. The court ordered a bench warrant, directing that Pattison be brought before the court forthwith to show cause why the fine had not been paid, or why he should not be committed in accordance with the judgment. Commitment was issued and returned "Not found." Afterwards, on April 7, 1924, during the regular March, 1924, term of court the matter was heard upon a motion by the United States attorney for a commitment, and upon the oral motion of defendant to set aside the judgment of October 31, 1919, for a remission of the penalty imposed, upon the ground that Mann, the principal, having been acquitted, Pattison, accessory, could not be legally guilty. The court denied the motion of the defendant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilmore v. United States
...402, 68 L.Ed. 864; Woods Bros. Const. Co., Inc., v. Yankton County, S. D., 8 Cir., 54 F.2d 304, 308-310, 81 A.L.R. 300; Pattison v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 14, 15; Hynes v. United States, 7 Cir., 35 F.2d 734, 735; Fine v. United States, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 591, 592, 593, certiorari denied......
-
United States v. Wright, Criminal No. 11032.
...71 F.2d 906, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 597, 55 S.Ct. 120, 79 L.Ed. 690; United States v. Symonette, 5 Cir., 57 F.2d 863; Pattison v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 14; United States v. Goldman, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 468; Id., 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 310, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 588, 61 S.Ct. 1109, 8......
-
United States ex rel. Coy v. United States
...courts throughout the country, some of which decisions are as follows: Aderhold v. Murphy, Warden, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 492; Pattison v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 14; United States v. Luvisch, D.C., E.D.Mich., 17 F.2d 200; United States v. Ali, D.C., E.D.Mich., 20 F.2d 998; In re Lakebo, D......
-
United States v. Landicho
...the defendant was given has long since expired, United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 67, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Pattison v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 14, 15; Gargano v. United States, 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 118, 119, and the judgment was given more than two years prior to the date of fili......