United States v. Hillegass
Citation | 176 F. 444 |
Decision Date | 27 January 1910 |
Docket Number | 31. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. HILLEGASS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
J Whitaker Thompson and Walter C. Douglas, Jr., for the United states.
John McClintock, Jr., and A. Florence Yerger, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted under section 5209, Rev. St. (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3497), for aiding and abetting Morris L Hartman, the cashier of the Farmers' National Bank of Boyertown, to misapply its funds, which section, so far as material to this cause, is as follows:
'Every * * * cashier * * * or agent of any association who * * * willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of the association * * * with intent * * * to injure or defraud the association, * * * or any individual person; * * * and every person who with like intent aids or abets any officer, clerk or agent in violation of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.'
There are 136 counts in the indictment, all alike in the statement of the offense charged, except that count 1 is general, charging the unlawful misapplication by means of divers checks drawn by the defendant and paid by the cashier of the bank, and counts 2 to 12, inclusive, charge similar misapplications by means of a number of checks, all drawn to the same payee by the defendant, and paid by the cashier to the persons named in the count. Counts 13 to 136, inclusive, are special counts, and identical, except as to the date, amount, and name of the payee. Count 13, which may be taken as a type of the rest is as follows:
This indictment was found by the grand jury on the 11th day of March, 1909, was called for trial on September 27, 1909, and on October 15th a verdict of guilty was rendered by the jury. The reasons for which a new trial is now urged are 33 in number, the first two of which, however, are more properly questions to be considered on a motion in arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Caplan, 13609.
...can play in accomplishing the result is to aid and abet someone at the bank who has control of the funds. United States v. Hillegass, D.C.E.D.Pa.1910, 176 F. 444, at page 447, affirmed Hillegass v. United States, 3 Cir., 1910, 183 F. 199, at page 203, certiorari denied 219 U.S. 585, 31 S.Ct......
-
Havener v. United States
...would require the presence or knowledge of the accused, Brown, to make such circumstances admissible." In the case of United States v. Hillegass (D. C.) 176 F. 444 (affirmed Hillegass v. U. S., 183 F. 199, 105 C. C. A. 631, certiorari denied 219 U. S. 585, 31 S. Ct. 470, 55 L. Ed. 347), whi......
-
United States v. Pyle
...in the instant case be correct, would have been that a fraudulent intent on the part of the banker was immaterial. In U.S. v. Hillegass (D.C.) 176 F. 444, 449, it is that a misapplication by the cashier, with criminal intent, was necessary to be established to the satisfaction of the jury, ......
-
United States v. Speare
...the answer. The question of whether criminal intent is inferable from the facts proved is a question for the jury. United States v. Hillegass, 176 F. 444, 446 (D.C. Pa.1910), aff'd 3 Cir., 183 F. 199, cert. den. 219 U.S. 585, 31 S.Ct. 470, 55 L.Ed. 347. To the extent that these consideratio......