State v. Eifert

• Decision Date: 12 December 1895
• Citation: 65 N.W. 309,102 Iowa 188
• Parties: STATE v. EIFERT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 Iowa 188

65 N.W. 309

STATE

v.EIFERT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 12, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Bremer county; P. W. Burr, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of fraudulent banking, and sentenced to be confined in the state penitentiary for two years and six months, and to pay costs. He appeals. Affirmed.Gibson & Dawson, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Jesse A. Miller, for the State.

KINNE, J.

1. The indictment charges the defendant with the crime of fraudulent banking, committed as follows: “The said Henry Eifert, on the 15th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, in the county aforesaid, being then and there engaged in the banking and deposit business, under the name and style of Bank of Tripoli, and then and there being insolvent, and well knowing himself to be insolvent, did knowingly accept and receive from C. H. Mohling a deposit in his banking and deposit business, the sum of one hundred dollars, consisting of gold and silver money, national bank bills, United States treasury notes and currency, and other notes, bills, and drafts circulating as money and currency, the particular description to the grand jury unknown, to the amount and of the value of one hundred dollars, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided.” The sufficiency of this indictment was questioned by a demurrer, which was overruled, and an exception taken. It is urged that it is defective, in that it does not state who the money alleged to have been deposited belonged to, or who was the owner of it, or entitled to its possession; that it fails to aver who, if any one, was defrauded. Section 1 of the act against fraudulent banking prohibits any bank, banking house, or party engaged in banking or deposit business from accepting or receiving on deposit any money when such banking house or deposit office, firm, or party is insolvent. Acts 18th Gen. Assem. c. 153, § 1. Section 2 is as follows: “If any such bank, banking house, exchange broker or deposit office, firm, company, corporation, or party, shall receive or accept on deposit any such deposits as aforesaid, when insolvent, any officer, director, cashier, manager, member, party or managing party thereof, knowing of such insolvency, who shall knowingly receive or accept, be accessory, or permit or connive at the receiving or accepting on deposit therein, or thereby, any such deposits as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed ten years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or both fine and imprisonment, the fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars.” Acts 18th Gen. Assem. c. 153, § 2. In support of the contention that the indictment is defective because it fails to state the name of the injured party, counsel rely upon cases decided by this court wherein it was held that the indictment, in certain cases, must set out the name of the person injured, or attempted to be injured. We do not think it is necessary to discuss these cases. Let it be conceded that the indictment in this case must show who the injured party is, and we think it must be held to conform to the law in that respect. It occurs to us that one reading this indictment would at once understand that the charge was that the money belonged to the person making the deposit; that he was the owner. If the act complained of is stated with such a degree of certainty, in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner, as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended to be charged, it is sufficient. Code, § 4305. Can there be any doubt that such a person, on reading this indictment, would understand that it charged that the defendant, knowing that he was insolvent, did knowingly receive a deposit of money from Mohling, and that it was his money which was thus deposited? We think not. Now, one may own money, and may send it by some one to be deposited in a bank, but we should not speak of the mere carrier of the money as a depositor, but the one for whom it was in fact taken to the bank would be the depositor. The owners of money deposited in a bank are the depositors of that bank; that is, they are the people who made the deposits. We think that, read in the light of the requirements of our statute, the indictment, to the common understanding, as fairly charges that Mohling was the injured party as if it had in express terms stated that he owned the money which he deposited.

2. It is strenuously urged that the court erred in permitting certain questions to be asked the defendant on cross-examination. It appeared from the direct examination that the defendant undertook to state his connection, or rather want of connection, with the making of the alleged deposit. He testified that he left town that morning early, and went to Waverly; that, prior to going, he had a conversation with his son about receiving deposits on that day; that he told him he was going to Waverly to look the ground over; and that, if things did not look favorable, he would send the son a telephone message, through a party who was with him, not to receive any more deposits, and to stop doing business; that he sent the message to his son to stop doing business, and not to receive...