Reynolds v. United States, 7191.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 7191.,7191.
• Citation: 67 F.2d 216
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

67 F.2d 216 (1933)

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7191.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 16, 1933.

P. J. Gallagher and Denton G. Burdick, both of Portland, Or., for appellant.

Carl C. Donaugh, U. S. Atty., and J. W. McCulloch, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Or.

Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

The defendant Reynolds, having been convicted and sentenced upon a charge of violating section 37 of the federal Penal Code (18 USCA § 88), and section 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 USCA § 592), seeks to reverse the judgment upon two grounds assigned as errors; the first, that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment, and, the second, that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for a continuance.

In support of the first assignment the appellant claims that in order to properly allege the crime of defrauding a national bank, or a member of the Federal Reserve Bank, it is essential not only to allege that the bank defrauded was such a bank, as was done in this case, but also to allege that the defendant knew that the bank he was defrauding was such a bank. The point is not well taken. If, as alleged, the defendant conspired to defraud a national bank it is immaterial whether or not he knew it to be such a bank. The point does not merit serious discussion. It is also claimed by the appellant that the counts of the indictment (2, 3, and 4) charging that the defendant aided and abetted the defrauding of the bank are insufficient because these counts fail to allege that he did so "knowingly." The allegations of the indictment in that regard are as follows:

"* * * and as said defendants and each of them then and there well knew the moneys so drawn and converted would be, and in fact were, wholly lost to the said association, and the funds and credits of the said association were depleted in said amount solely by reason of the acts of the said defendant, Wynter R. Patterson, in cashing and honoring said checks as in this count of this indictment aforesaid.

"And the said H. Laurence Reynolds then and there, to-wit, on or about the 5th day of January, 1932 at Portland in the said District of Oregon, unlawfully and feloniously did aid and abet the said Wynter R. Patterson as savings teller and agent as aforesaid in so wilfully misapplying said money, funds and credit with intent on his part to injure and defraud said association in the manner and by the means in this count set forth."

These allegations are sufficient. The defendant is charged with aiding and abetting his codefendant in depleting the funds of the bank with intent, on his part, to injure and defraud the bank. This is sufficient to charge the offense defined in the statute in the terms of the statute.

The assignment of error based upon the order denying a continuance challenges the discretion of the trial court and charges that the failure of the trial court to grant a continuance was an abuse of discretion. The...