Roberts v. United States, 11244.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 11244.,11244. |
| Citation | 151 F.2d 664 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Graham Wright, of Rome, Ga., for appellant.
M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and J. Ellis Mundy, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was charged in the first five counts with the embezzlement of five different sums of money and in the sixth count with making a false entry in the books of the Bank of Cedartown, Georgia, of which he was cashier. Convicted on all six counts, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and one day on each of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and to a period of eighteen months on Count 5 — all sentences to run concurrently, so that the total time of his six sentences was eighteen months.
Since the sentence on Count 5 is longer than the sentence on any other count, but concurrent with the sentence on all others, we will first consider the facts in connection with that count, for if it ought to be affirmed, a reversal of the conviction under any other count would avail Appellant nothing. We will say in passing, however, that we have examined the record and the briefs carefully and find that there is ample evidence to support the conviction in each of the other counts and that no reversible error is shown to have been made in the trial thereunder.
The fifth count alleges that the defendant was the cashier of Commercial National Bank of Cedartown in Cedartown, Georgia; that defendant was also Chairman of the City Commission of Cedartown and as such had authority to negotiate loans and sign notes for and on behalf of the City, but only after a resolution specifically authorizing each such loan had been regularly passed at a meeting of the Commission; that the defendant, while cashier of the Bank, without resolution of the City Commission authorizing the same and without authority of the City of Cedartown and its City Commission, made, executed, and signed a promissory note in the sum of $2020.00, which note the defendant signed as Chairman of the City Commission and which he caused to be charged to the City in the liability ledger of the Bank showing the note account of the City with the Bank, and that the said defendant did knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously embezzle, abstract, and misapply the said sum of $2020.00.
There was evidence tending to show the following: (1) The note was in the handwriting of the defendant. (2) The note was signed by the defendant as Chairman of the City Commission. (3) The note was placed in the files of the Bank. (4) It had been entered on the liability ledger of the Bank and charged to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnam v. Lower
...364, 68 S.Ct. 525; see note 6, supra. 9 Henry v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 639, and cases at page 641; Roberts v. United States, 5 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 664, 665. 10 Typical is the answer of appellee Bunker! "I. "Admits that intervening libelant signed a purported working share a......
-
In re Davenport
...B.R. 561, 565 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1987) (citing United States v. Powell, 413 F.2d 1037, 1038 (4th Cir.1969)); see also Roberts v. United States, 151 F.2d 664, 665 (5th Cir.1945). Since fraud thrives in the shadows, a debtor who acts openly, without any attempt at concealment, and whose actions ......
-
Barfield v. United States
...F. 476; McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520, 33 S. Ct. 146, 57 L.Ed. 330; Andrews v. United States, 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 723; Roberts v. United States, 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 664. 3 Prince v. United States, supra; Battaglia v. United States, supra; Morandy v. United States, supra; and United States v. W......
-
Bell v. United States
...17, 63 L.Ed. 1173; Pierce v. U. S., 252 U.S. 239, 251, 40 S.Ct. 205, 64 L.Ed. 542; Yoffe v. U. S., 1 Cir., 153 F.2d 570, 573; Roberts v. U. S., 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 664; U. S. v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, 849. In Curley v. U. S. the court said, 160 F.2d at page 232: "The true rule, therefor......