*1 v. UNITED STATES. Syllabus. SU. BURTON UNITED STATES. THE OP THE STATES POR" THE DISTRICT COURT
ERROR TO DISTRICT MISSOURI. EASTERN OP Argued 30, November December 1, January 16, 1905. No. 343. 1904.—Decided in of was indicted and tried Dis- A the -United States Senator Eastern 1782, Stat., of indictment a violation Rev. trict of Missouri for § corporation averring before certain that he had rendered services for.a Department in which the United States was matters the Post Office against interested, such whether “fraud order” should issue is, that payment at therefor. he had received St. Louis corporation, and that was interested in the matters that the United States The defendant denied Stat., meaning 1782, of within Rev. § to in referred the indictment thereof, any alleged service in violation and that he had rendered to, paid by, and had been had rendered services which he general counsel, with of and connected corporation, those were compensa- proved without contradiction “fraud order.” It was him from and St. Louis tion he under certain counts was sent received by Washington in of checks on a Louis bank the form received him St. deposited Washington, receiving credit therefor which he in his bank in once, subsequently paid in due On the at and course. which checks jurisdiction denied, offense, any court if there trial was, Louis, having Washington and not at been committed 6, I privilege his from arrest Art. the defendant also asserted under § privilege court from arrest was Constitution. The held that the agreement there was waived submitted to the whether place Louis payment of the was St. and not Wash- which the of checks that, Held ington: alleged a case that is The facts the indictment showed covered of provisions Rev. Stat. § privilege a Senator of the United has waived ms Whether States from only given privilege personal pur- arrest whether such is for the always pose securing representation his State Senate are not questions; denied, and, properly frivolous if in the court raised below and jurisdiction court directly this has issue the writ error Dis- Court, being trict without then to decide case restricted to the question. constitutional questions is not the habit of this court to It decide a constitutional, necessary,to absolutely unless a decision of nature the case. drawing against deposit of in a'bank and them a customer of debtor relation and creditor and the constitutes the bank becomes the TERM, ' Statement the Case. deposited, absolute owner of the cheeks so agdnt and not the of the cus- them; not, tomer collect this relation any special absence agreement, right affected of the bank customer, *2 liability therefor, his in paid. case the checks are not payment The of the to defendant in this payment manner awas Washington, any at and if crime was Lo.uis, committed was not at St. and, evidence, in view of the it was jury any ques- error to submit to the tion as to made, where the and those counts in the indict- ment which allegations were based on payments of in St. Louis should have jurisdiction been dismissed as the court no thereover. had. This is not the of case the commencement’of a crime in one district and completion its in another so that the court either district would have jurisdiction under § Rev. Stat. requests of charge Certain defendant’s to which were allowed were referred propositions to as mere abstract of law specifically and not otherwise charged; having after thirty-eight jurprs been out hours the returned and were instructed duty court in jurors, relation to their as and the having questions foreman stated answer to of the court that stood one, charged eleven to duty court agree pos- that it was their to if sible. Counsel then asked requests the court to instruct that defendant’s charge to part which had been allowed were as much a of the that which emanated from the court. This was refused. Held: Error, and, case, under the circumstances this it was a right, matter of discretion, jury and not that -the should be as to the char- requests. acter of the brought aWhen agree, before the court because unabfe to it is not material for duty the court in pro- order instruct it as to its and the priety agreeing proportion to understand the opinion, division of proper and the require administration of the law permit does not or part presiding judge. such of the in error plaintiff been convicted in having the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri aof violation of the of the Revised Statutes United States, S.tat., 1212), U. and set 17<82,(1 Comp. p. sec. S. forth in the directly the case here from has that court brought margin,1 writ of error. 1 Comp. Stat. 1212. Senator, Representative, Delegate, or after his No election and Sec. 1782. office, Department, no of a during continuance head or his other agree Government, employ or officer or shall receive clerk any any compensation whatever, directly indirectly, for Services receive another, rendered, rendered, person, himself or either accusation, claim, controversy, charge, any proceeding, contract, relation to STATES. of the Case. Statement S.U. United Senate of the member awas The indictment of Kansas. the State States, representing The first nine counts. tried contained he was under from a Senator defendant was count, averring after day twenty-sixth averred that on Kansas, the State of Rialto- from the Missouri, Louis, he received March, 1903, money, $500 in Company compensation and Securities Grain and on divers 22,1902, theretofore on his services for November day of twenty-sixth and the day days between other Office before Post company rendered March, 1903, matter then and in a certain States, of the United Department (cid:127) in which the United that Department, before there pending com- say: that is to Whether the directly interested', States Re- of section 5480 of the provisions had violated the pany in that United had States, company vised Statutes to, scheme and devised a artifice defraud, officers its through *3 by means of correspondence effected through was to be which the and whether States, of United office establishment the post at St. Louis, Mo., the should company the of correspondence "Fraudulent” written plainly the word not be with returned It also outside, by the authorized law. stamped or upon rendered defendant to thé com- by that the services averred of visits the Postmaster General, consisted the part pany and other officers of the Post chief Office inspector, Depart- statements made the and of Postmaster ment, General, officers, and other which inspector, chief visits and statements were made with a view made and for the the Postmaster General, of the chief inducing purpose inspector, officers to decide the then and other before pending arrest, thing or other matter or party, the United is a States or directly indirectly interested, Department, or court-martial, before Bureau, office, any civil, military, or Every naval commission whatever. offending against person guilty this shall section be deemed aof misde- nfeanor, imprisoned and shall 'be years, not than more two and fined not dollars, shall, moreover, thousand ten conviction there- more.than for, incapable holding any honor, be rendered forever thereafter of of office trust, profit under of Government United States. TERM, 1904. of Case.
Statement in way favorable to the Department Post Office Rialto count of the indictment The second Company. the same as the it averred United first, except States was “in- instead of directly,” “directly,” interested in. the question as to whether or not a “fraud” order should be issued. Upon the third count the rendered a verdict of guilty. the fourth and fifth Upon counts the Government entered a nolle The third, fourth and prosequi. fifth concededly counts offense, but one which was the same.as that charged counts, the first and second and all of these counts were based $500 of in cash to upon payment defendant at on St. Louis twenty-sixth March, sixth count averred the city defendant at the of St. receipt Louis, the State of of a check for the Missouri, payment $500, which was re- ceived the defendant on the by. twenty-second of November, the check drawn Commonwealth Trust being to the order of Louis, the defendant Company payable St. him and such check was duly indorsed, paid by Louis, trust at as compensation to defendant company St. November 22, 1902, services to the between company his Post in a 26, 1903, Department, March before the Office matter interested. The count directly in which the United States averments of the character then contained the same Post Office as are Department before the set question pending count is the same The seventh as the forth in the first count. a check and making that it averred sixth, except 15, 1902, December to the defendant thereof for the sum of Missouri, Louis, the State city count. same §ixth all other averments $500; being *4 for the sum of check of a The count averred eighth giving in the State Louis, at the of St. January 22, 1903, city $500 on stated nature of services of the same Missouri, of the same is in the and seventh counts. The ninth count sixth as the seventh and that it averred sixth, eighth, except 1903, defendant, Ferbuary 16, a dated of check receipt Missouri, State for same of Louis, city 287 r. STATES. Argument for Plaintiff Error. the same matter then before pending services class demurred to the Department. Post Office that it stated no and that crime, ground indictment had no direct or in- interest, States the United showed before the Post-Office inas- Department, matter in the direct, States, under the statute, interest of the United much as the which interest, or property may either pecuniary must be affected action or unfavorably taken favorably sought or before the Department. matter de- pending in the given and the defendant then overruled, pleaded not murrer was guilty. and Mr. Frederick W. Lehmann, F. Dillon with-
Mr. John Mr. John M. Dillon and Mr. Hubbard, whom Mr. W. H. Harry in error: brief, plaintiff were on the Rossington “directly indirectly was not The United States interested” order should issue whether a fraud and, Rialto Company; therefore, Grain Securities court to the indictment, should have sustained the demurrer or should have the motion arres! should granted judgment, have and should not have defendant, directed verdict for instructed that the United States was “interested” as in the in- alleged dictment. For history Rev. legislative Stat. 1782, see § Part Globe, I, Sess., 1st Cong. Debates on Son. Bill 28, 38th 1863,1864, Cong., 93, 460, pages 555, 559, 561, 714, 2773, and act as Ch. passed Appx. Cong. Globe, 177. does not say
Section.1782 or mean in which the things people of the United are States interested, but in which the things United States, meaning United States, as a Government, is interested.
The kind of interest of the United States meant is shown by which the § statute things specifically mentions, and the “other matters or referred things” to are matters or in which things the United States has a similar interest, under the principle ejusdem generis noscitur a socvis. Lord Tenterden’s Rule, Am. & Eng. Law, Ency. *5 TERM,
288
1904.
Argument for Plaintiff in Error.
196 IT. S.
Alabama v.
1012;
Montague,
Section 1782 is criminal statute and is to be interpreted as such. court should not seek to include therein any- The not included in the statute. thing unquestionably United Wiltberger, 76; States v. 5 Wheat. United States v. Sheldon, 119; Morris-,' Wheat. United States v. Peters, 464; United 2 Dillon, States v. Clayton,
There was no evidence defendant’s as to establishing guilt off'the offenses the indictment or of any any offense charged and the court erred in to direct a verdict whatever, refusing each count. not as to guilty testimony no that the Senator had done any-
There was or in of the statute in his the in- Department violative thing The shows testimony talk. af- supplemental consequential he tried firmatively prevent fraud The letters and show that telegrams they is not true. order fraud order. any no reference had actual services rendered Senator employment no relation to matter had counsel Burton as general by 1782, and were prohibited and were indictment, § counsel. monthly salary general his paid checks to the four Senator Burton made payments Louis, not in St. in Washington were made the.court Constitution, no jurisdiction had, under in St. Louis as set forth checks, sixth, based on offenses alleged ninth counts. seventh,' eighth Louis, paid belonged when checks, The four Wash- National Bank of to Burton nor to Riggs neither in- check each to a subsequent in the' instance of but ington, UNITED STATES. Argument for Plaintiff Error. check, which was the owner of the to such dorsee, payment was not either indorsee to Burton or to subsequent Bank. Neither Bank nor bank any other Riggs Riggs *6 was of Burton. v. N. Y. Metro- Craigie Hadley, 131; 99 agent National Bank v. Bank Loyd, 530; 90 N. Y. Republic politan Millard, 152; v. 10 Wall. v. Wall. Riggs, 663; 5 Thompson 2 Bank, Bank v. Fulton Wall. 252; Marine Bank Phoenix 111 v. 125; v. U. S. Scammon U. Risley, Kimball, 93 S. Johnston, St. Louis &c. Co. v. 133 U. S. distin- Ry. 566, 362. guished.
The title to the check' commercial passed under ab- usage Bank absolutely to each indorsee. solutely Riggs of the New York Clearing House, resolution June 4, 1896, its indorsements “for object prevent had for collection” transfer and to absolute Evansville ownership. Bank v. Ger- man'-American Bank, 556; 155 Commercial Bank Arm- v. 148 U. S. strong, 50.
If
Bank
National
Riggs
Washington
agent
to collect the checks,
Buftón
then the
indorsees of
subsequent
said
if
checks,
they were
agents
all,
agents
National-Bank and not of Burton. Hoover
Riggs
Wise,
v.
91
308, 313;
U.S.
Bank v.
Nat.
Exchange
Bank,
Third
112 U. S.
276,
Van Wart v.
&
citing
3 B. C.
Woolley,
439; Tradesman’s
Bank v. Third
Bank,
National
VOL.. CXCVI-19 TERM, 1904.
Argument for Plaintiff Error. can be no or constructive under the implied presence There Burr, United States v. Cranch. Appx. Constitution. law The common local principle jurisdiction of criminal offenses was adopted by Constitution respect States, substituting of the United “State” and “State for county. district” defendant, erred in a Sesator of
The court trying also, inwas States, session, when the Senate United sentence of fine and imprisonment pronouncing judgment to be a time when the was in him, executed at Senate §6; §§856-862, Art. Const. S., I, Story, session.- Const. U. and authorities there cited. immunity personal,
This from arrest is not but belongs Government, of Senator for the benefit the office constituents, of Kansas- and of his- and the defendant State if he had consented or to do it, attempted not waive even could *7 waiver in fact or in law; record shows no such and The so. no the cause while the Senate was in power try court had ' . session. . waiver, effect, The defendant’s whatever its supposed legal extend no further than the any event, period could, during im- up the defendant failed to set his constitutional 1904, March court had no munity, 29, power after. sentence 6, 1904, April- pronounce judgment , then in session. being Senate Constitution, involve the proceedings application within, 3, of the act March Constitution, meaning §5 to this court. The-trial and a writ will lie direct
1891, of a immunity with Senator are in conflict judgment 2 Liberty the session. Paterson from imprisonment during 727; May’s'Const. Rév. Stat. et 140, seq.; 188 Subject, § XI; and ch. 3 Stubb’s Const. Hist. VII, 4th ed. II, 3, Hist. ch. Man. ed., 160; Jefferson’s Pari. Cooley’s Lim., 6th 538; Const. Hist. 370; Campbell’s Lord on Const. §3, Privilege; Yonge’s As to 1 179; Life, 2 188. Campbell, Speeches, Hardcastle’s waive, see may prosecution in a criminal what v. UNITED STATES. [03] o Argument, for the United States. Utah, v. U. 574, S. Hopt v. Thompson Utah, S. 579; 170 U. 343, 353; Schick v. United States, Harlan, J.-s, dissent, U. S. 65.
Evidence was improperly admitted and the trial court did its and instructions to the charge jury cure error which it made in the admission of improper evidence-; but, contrary, confirmed such It error. also erred its addi- tional after had charge come back for further , instructions as well as in its original charge instructions. in its First, instructions on propositions law, and also de- the defendant of priving his constitutional to have the right of his question laid guilt indictment tried and decided jury. United Burr, States v. Appendix 470; ’Cranch. Second, coercing jury into render- a verdict of ing guilty.
It is error to instruct so that the instruction implies court requires a-conviction. Hodges State, 15 Georgia,
Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt the United States: No constitutional presented or was saved so as direct justify review in this court unless the court think fit issue certiorari.
There are four important questions (1) Was case: there any .proceeding before the Post Office pending Depart- ment in which the United States was (2) interested? Did the reñder accused services with the intent to influence the De- in such he partment and did receive proceeding, compensation therefor? (3) Did the trial court have jurisdiction? (4) Did *8 the accused waive his as Member of privilege and Congress, was it for him competent to do so?
I. The power to and Congress legislate, authority the Postmaster General under are legislation very broad, and the Postmaster General- acts well within his established powers when he institutes' a fraud order I, Art. inquiry. sec. 8, 8, cl. Constitution; 396; 3929, 5480, Rev. Btat.; 44, Postal §§ Laws §
292 TERM, 1904.
Argument for the United States.
196 Ü. S.
and
Clearing
Public
House v.
Reg.;
Coyne,
No branch of executive closely more department affects than the people service and the postal United States is interested a fraud order both because inqhiry its revenue affected, are property because its rights intangible- functions constitute an responsibilities interest within the of the law. The United States is meaning vitally interested a fraudulent protect people against use of the mails, dissemination of the prevent “literature” aof fraudulent scheme. As the broad of the Govern- scope ment’s “interest” as see .patriae, United States v. parens Bunt- ing, 883, 884; 82 Fed. Palmer Rep. v. 18 D. C. Colladay, App. 426; States, v. Law Tyner Rep. 258; United 32 Wash. Curley United Fed. States, Rep. 1, v. 130 3-9.
II. Under the facts to services proved to the Rialto are they when Company, especially regarded together consecutively, there can no doubt that services were ren- dered and received violation of compensation the statute. III. The last was made in’cash to the accused at Louis, and that sufficient to sustain the judgment. v. 142 States, 140; United Claassen Evans v. United'States, 584, 595; Goode v. United States, U. S. 669; 159 v. United U. States, Putnam 162 S. 687; Rice v. Ames, 180 S. But the counts U. checks are good. Government a custom and proved usage Wash- prevailing checks as such collection ington regarding items, although aof customer’s immediate good because credit standing might subject such items to immediate being be given, back if' returned were hot unpaid. purchased by the were collected for Burton and bank; paid him at St. This purchase Louis. submitted collection under instructions. Ward proper Smith, v. 7 Wall. Trust U. 447; Savings Co., Sc S. Evansville Dodge ;(cid:127) Bank, S. Bank v. German American U. and cases cited; *9 ‘ n m r. STATES. Argument for the United States. U. 196 S. St. Louis Bank, 289; 23 N. Y. efeS. F. Co. By.
Scott v. Ocean v. Authorities cited in error by plaintiff U. S. 566. Johnston, 133 distinguished. Rev. be- Stat., supports jurisdiction below,
Section 731, all the offense as well as the process cause at events Louis. That statute is at St. completed constitutional. In U. S. v. Palliser, 257; States, re 136 United 143 H.orner U. an States, Putnam v. United 162 S. 687. Where 207; completed offense is one another it begun district can be tried in the latter district. That only The accused not arrested. is the privi-
IV. only It to arrests in applies from arrest. exemption lege, and not to indictable offenses. It was civil proceedings may waived. It is purely personal waived. promptly Arts, Bill of V; Stubbs, Art. Select Confed., Rights 1689, History, ed., Oxford, of Const. 2d Clarendon Press, Charters I, 1, Art. sec. cl. Coxe pp: 523-525; Constitution; v. 1 3 Dali. Bl. Com. Com. McClenachan, 478; 164, 165; Bowyer’s Law of Hallam’s Const. England, 82-84; Hist., Const. Hansard, et Salk. Stockdale v. Ad. Ill, pp. seq.; 505; vol. 379 9 1 & M. 12 225; §2, 2; Ill, and El. Wm. c. & 13 Wm. c. 3; 11 c. Geo. II, 24; Ill, 50; I, Ge©. c. Jac. c. Viner’s 13; vol. Bartlett v. Term II, p. 36) Hebbes, 5 Abridgment, Rep. 686; I Geyer’s Irwin, Story Lessee v. Dali. on the Const. 107; §
This
is not like the
of trial by
which is
privilege
right
jury,
a system
universal mandate to
guard
jurisprudence
all the
and therefore because
protect
people,
of the public
can
principle
interest
be waived
only
and modified under
certain
conditions
peculiar
and situations.
v.'
Hopt Utah, 110
U. S. 574. When there is no constitutional mandate and no
public policy
an
prohibiting,
may
accused
waive
privilege
which he is
given
right
enjoy.
States;
Schick United
Broadwell
States,
v. United
represented, not fit to repre- sent is thus interested in them. public having privi- waived and the determined as lege promptly possi- ble. Waiver is for another reason; it is an requisite unwritten *10 law of the that it refrains from action Senate within its own power discipline expel, provided only that a member in under indictment does not the Senate while appear such in the courts is undetermined in his favor. In that charge are either only case twd courses to waive the open, privilege and to trial on member’s or else proceed initiative, resign and a electors select fit opportunity repre- give sentative. after Peckham,
Mr. Justice state- making foregoing ment of deliveretl the of the facts, opinion court. for defendant base their to obtain
Counsel a direct right of review this court conviction in judgment the Dis- Missouri the contention trict Court of that the case in- the construction and application volves Constitution of in They United States several that particulars. insist 2, Constitution, Article section of and also under under same, Amendment of the the defendant was entitled Sixth of the State district in which the crime by Jury to be tried him in the indictment was committed. This alleged against arises reason of those counts of the indictment question of various by defendant checks therein receipt of while Missouri, in the State the evi- Louis,' at St. forth, set that the checks contradiction, without shows, the case in dence C.,D. and city of Washington, received one of the banks of that city. made to defendant thereof if crime were committed contended Counsel to the de- thereof and the payment these of receipt in Wash- was committed (which that crime denied), fendant within Missouri, it did not come and that not and ington States, pro- the United Statutes section thaNevised ?\ UNITED STATES. Opinion of S. the Court. 196 U. an offense United States is when
viding-that begun in one circuit and another it shall be judicial completed been committed either,- may deemed to have dealt district, in either the same manner as-if it had with, etc., wholly been actually’ committed therein. Counsel defendant also contend that the case involves construction I section 6 of Article of Constitution of application the United States, Representatives Senators providing treason, in all cases and breach of shall, felony except arrest peace, be from -their attendance .at the privileged during sessions their houses and in respective going return-. from These the same. were raised in the ing questions court' below. Whether the defendant waived his alleged privilege freedom from- arrest as Senator would probably depend upon whether the offense was in substance a and if felony, so,"was that privilege one personal only, and. for the purpose always *11 given securing representation of a State in the Senate United States. However that be, the is not may frivolous, case question such statute to this court grants jurisdiction issue writ error directly to the District and then to Court, decide case . without' restricted to the constitutional being question Horner No. 2, 143 U. S. 570. States, United It is not the habit of the court to decide of a questions constitutional nature unless ..absolutely necessary to‘a decision of-the case. juris Having: diction all to-decide questions case on this writ of error, we deny the motion for a certiorari, proceed to an ex amination of the record. statute, First. The .question of the construction of he upon
. which this indictment was framed is the first to arise. Upon that question a majority of the Justice (Mr. Harlan, court Mr. Justice Brown, Justice Mr. Mr. McKenna-, Justice Holmes and Mr. Day Justice are of that the opinion facts concurring) in alleged indictment show case that covered by provisions statute, while the Chief Justice, Mr. Jus- tice Brewer, Mr. Justice White and the writer of'this opinion TERM,
Opinion of the Court. are of view, dissent from that that the opinion statute does cover the case as alleged indictment. that the statute Second. Assuming applies the facts stated a-further indictment, arises upon general merits of the whether there was case, sufficient evidence of to be submitted to the and a jury, court guilt majority same (the Justices are of concurring) opinion was, that there or are not prepared say there was and the not, minority same from that dissent view and are of that there was no opinion evidence whatever which to found a con- upon verdict of viction. other are, however, questions we remaining,
.There to discuss on the now proceed theory statute covers that the casé. sixth, seventh,
Third. The and ninth counts of eighth indictment aver the the defendant receipt of the different described, city Louis, the State of arid the Missouri, thereon to the money de- iri that Louis, fendant at St. for State, compensation services theretofore performed by the Rialto Com- may It be assumed that on the facts averred in these pany. in the various counts indictment each of them checks, (cid:127) It turned on the' trial that these out, good. however, of the. where the different checks were re- averments place the contrary, the evi- true; but,- ceived and were not paid each .of them was received wholly undisputed dence him C., D. city Washington, the defendant Bank with the Riggs indorsed and National. deposited there were afterwards duly paid C.,D. of Washington, at St. Louis, Missouri; Trust Company the Commonwealth *12 instance -immediately iri each the of each was amount the account of the Bank to by the National credited Riggs the cashier testified that with the' and the bank, defendant (cid:127) after the credit was immediately had the right, defendant thereof, dr without whole, any out the made, portion to draw check at St. Louis. the of the waiting r. UNITED STATES. 29fc Opinion of the Court. or made agreement no oral between special There was the the time any the bank at when one and of the defendant checks for the amount given and credit thereof. The deposited was check; with the took an account each bank, had when defendant bank, the the. check indorsed which was it went arrived, the bank took the his order, check, placed the. payable of the to the credit defendant’s account, amount thereof ’and' the was said In'other regard further matter. nothing case of ordinary the the transfer-or-sale of the it was words, the of it by purchase -by check the the. bank, defendant the under the delivery bank, its circumstances to the bank passed the title and it stated, check became' It no sense the the the owner thereof. was of de- agent the the amount check' fendant for purpose collecting it from which was drawn. From company upon the trust the check delivery the time of to the- defendant it could the'check; bank it became owner have'torn it or it in the fire made other use or disposition thrown up it and no of defendant have chose, it which would been right of Mr. cashier testimony infringed. Brice, Riggs as bank Bank, National to the custom of the when cheek was it paid, up depositor’s charging account, not in least vary did effect of the legal transaction; it method bank of simply pursued pay- exacting ment from indorser of the check, and more. nothing There whatever nothing evidence .any showing as understanding to the effect agreement of the transaction parties between the defendant and the making —the bank — other than such the law would from the imply already facts stated. check “for forwarding collection,” as stated by Mr. Brice, was not a collection for bank defendant his It agent. was sent to be and the Bank paid, forward Riggs was its owner when sent. With reference to the jurisdiction of over court offense described sixth follow- counts in the ing the court held if indictment, were actually received Washington *13 TERM, 1904. '
Opinion the Court. bank in city, him the and the money by to title paid the to the the checks bank at that ownership'of passed time, try in ho to the jurisdiction court Missouri had offense set. already counts of the indictment referred forth those to. no that such was the and was fact, There was it error to the to find some other fact jury the matter not to submit The court said: by any evidence. supported compensation claims that the “The Government referred to to accused the Rialto this was sent Grain and count in the form of a drawn on Company, check, by it Securities Company, Trust order of the payable Commonwealth that he received the check this accused, by mail; representing of Columbia, at compensation Washington, District it check, deposited and there indorsed to his own then National Bank at credit in the Riggs Washington; mentioned bank afterwards forwarded the last check to its Louis for correspondents payment by St. through which it was Company, upon Trust drawn, Commonwealth Bank and its in all this Riggs correspondents that the matter and were the the accused for agents became this sécuring money when the called for the check money, finally at trust on Louis, Missouri, St. company, paid it amounted to of that to drawn, money it was an Louis, Missouri. This important accused St. suggests reason that for the unless be true that case, feature of the money by and represented paid received the the accused would have no Louis, jurisdiction this court check at St. this case.” try United States confers “The Constitution be tried by criminal case the an every right accused of a State and district where crime shall impartial have been committed. is crime money
“The of the receipt gist he and if did not receive it in this accused, district, he he it, fact in where have received Louis, is'charged district, the daw in this be con- and cannot amenable STATES. Opinion Court. it be- Accordingly, this sixth count. in this court on victed what find from evidence duty to ascertain and your comes between the accused and the Washing- the true relations *14 with he check in that when 'the bank, question ton deposited as to and was the between them bank, what understanding in relation the check and the proceeds their respective rights this the court as follows: charges you thereof. On question and the “If it was the intent understanding Wasnington at the time the the bank and the accused latter deposited in that bank for former, check with the should question .the the same in usual and its corre course-by ward the through for that in it Louis, to St. so spondents payment, doing and its act as the correspondents only should the agents accused for that then the final the purpose, by Com payment monwealth Trust at the check to Company Louis, St. the of the correspondents bank, would amount in Washington law in payment St. Louis as in the sixth count, of the check the amount the accused. If on the contrary it was the intent of the understanding bank and Washington the accused at the the the time1 latter check in deposited ques tion with former that the the bank should become the pur chaser and should thereafter check, be the absolute owner and not act as as thereof, just indicated, agent in accused the collection of check, then the payment at St. Louis by Commonwealth Trust Company would amount in law to a bank and not to the Washington In the latter event no crime accused. would have been com mitted the accused this district, by reason of the check referred to in the sixth count of the indictment.
“In order to find the accused on the sixth guilty count, you find must frofti the evidence, by the same measure of as proof in all required criminal that cases, the check referred to in the sixth count deposited by was accused in the Washing- ton bank for collection, bank was to act collect- as the ing same, agent accused, not as the owner of the check in question. TERM, 1904
30Ó Opiftion of the Court. you are to and should issue, liberty
“In this at determining transaction it all the the actual adduced; consider evidence Bank where the check whs deposited, occurred the Riggs all its endorsements, check itself and rights privileges immediately accused’upon which were accorded making Bank the- the actual conduct and purpose Riggs deposit, for the check to Loüis the custom- payment, forwarding bank, of that and all banks' in Wash- ary conduct and usage far as And if from proof. at the time so shown ington- other the. you all these and all facts disclosed proof facts find that fact deposited' the check .on his as well as with the intent and accused, knowledge part, bank-itself, should be forwarded to the part o.f accused, account of the bank for St. Louis collection (cid:127) for the accused and. acting agents its correspondents find that when same you should collection, such make *15 at by the last indorser on the check St. Louis to actually paid which it it was in was’drawn, con- trust..company upon the to the accused paid of law himself. templation from you “If find the the contrary, on the evidence at the time of the of the Bank, deposit accused the Riggs - and intended thfe bank in understood check question, of be the .the check and its absolute should become purchaser of it to St. Louis for owner, forwarding then'the subsequent itself, and the final act of "bank payment was the payment at St. Louis was by pay- company of- the check trust' if bank, to the such is the accused, to but ment not verdict, count must be on the sixth your- guilty.” fact with'relation to scrutiny A of the evidence this careful charge there no foundation for shows that submitting the jury to of what was the (other understanding the jury question to as itself, .from the transaction shown by arose such as than evidence) between-the defendant and the bank- uncontradicted checks were with the these various deposited time when at the the credit of the defendant. proceeds-placed'to théir bank-and any kind other or understanding agreement There was no v. STATES. Opinion of the Court. from the as law makes transaction than such detailed, by was itself uncontradicted evidence proved offered by In itself. the absence of any special Government agree- effect of the shall be ment that the transaction otherwise (and is here), be asserted there no doubt that none can its effect legal is a of the and that the ownership paper, change subsequent in to obtain steps action bank taking itself can which it had in no purchased sense paper said be the action of an for its but the act an agent principal, owner own its learned regard .property. his judge jury deny did not, indeed-, general truth of this he but left it to the to determine proposition, whether there an was not made agreement understanding arrived by at the time the "parties taken bank, defendant to the which altered legal effect of the transaction we actually have proved. This, there was said, not the evidence and it was error to slightest of, submit that jury. general transactions between bank customer way to a customer’s deposits credit and drawing -the account the customer constitute the relation of creditor and debtor. As said Mr. Justice Davis, delivering opinion the court in Bank Republic Millard, Wall. of this speaking relationship, page 155:
“It is an important part of the business of to re- banking ceive but when are deposits, unless there received, are stipulations contrary, they to the bank, become belong of its part funds, and can be loaned general other moneys. The banker is for the accountable deposits which he *16 receives as a debtor, and he to agrees discharge these debts by honoring the checks which the shall depositors from time to time draw ón him. The between the parties contract is purely a one, legal and has the nature a of of trust in it. nothing This subject was fully Cottenham, discussed Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst in the House Lords Campbell the case of TERM, 1904.
Opinion of the Court.
196 U. S.
v.
Foley Hill, 2 Clark & Finnelly, 28,
they
all concurred in
the opinion that the
between a
relation
banker and customer,
who pays
into the
to whose
money
bank, or
credit money is
placed
there,
ordinary relation of debtor and creditor,
is.
and does
a
not
partake
fiduciary character, and the great
of American authorities is to the
weight
same effect.”
When a check is taken to a bank, and the bank receives it.
a
places
amount to
credit of customer, the
-the
relation
of creditor
them
and debtor between
subsists, and it is not that
This
is
principal
principle
held
agent.
v.
Thompson
Riggs,
663,
5 Wall.
and also in Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank,
The case of Cragie 131, v. N. Y. contains a Hadley, 99 state- ment of the rule as follows, per Andrews,. J.:
“The
ffoctrine that
a
general
upon
deposit made-by a.cus-
in a
course of
'(cid:127)fcomer,
bank,
ordinary
business, or of money,
drafts or
as money,
checks received and credited
the title
or to the
is
money,
checks,
to
drafts or
immediately vested
in and becomes the
of the
property
bank, is
to
open
ques
tion.
Bank
(Commercial
Albany Hughes,
In Metropolitan Andrews, Danforth, Judge Judge speak cases referred effect of check the credit of depositor placing ing bank, with the said in’his account that: —. bank, cheeks) (the
“The’ passed title to his control. Scott v. Ocean Bank in subject not again [See *17 v. STATES. Opinion Court. of the TJ. S. cases cited 289, and 23 N. Y. York, New other City of opinion'.]
"It [*] is true [*] no express [*] [*] agreement [*] was made transferring [*] [*] [*] was delivered bank but it money, 'so much check for for the Murray bank credit it, and the gave accepted ' ' That was property he it. enough. The amount, accepted He and vested the bank. Murray from in the check passed for to it him, credited to money to draw'the so was entitled as formed, creditor was right of debtor and the relation of the natúre very at once to command Murray hand, the other the bank, the transaction. On and essence a its perfect upon could confer title check, as owner of thé plaintiff when its directions transferee, and, therefore, for it it became its upon accpunt,: credit received anti gave it money to the which . . . represented. entitled owner and check had been for insists, deposited a If, as the appellant would have re- collection, property specific purpose —for there is' no evidence but depositor, mained established, nor with .such fact could consistent or with between admitted parties, dealings circumstances. it was the intention of both parties
"These show that of the check absolute; make transfer .to merely money bank to receive the upon it, enable the Murray’s agent.” Bank, is set forth principle, same 172 Massa Taft In that case the court said: when, 363. "tío
chusetts, without' a check upon deposit a bank receives endorsed more, without restriction, anti credit for it to the depositor cash in gives the form of the transaction is account, consistent' drawing with sale, which, money and indicates a as with so deposited', check becomes the absolute banker.”.' property
In the at was not proof disputed. case bar the credit wore of defendant passed unconditionally, The custom of any special understanding. without the bank- TERM, Opinion of the Court. 196 IT. S. to forward such checks for collection is a custom to for- plain only liability for itself. The ward collection 'was on his All this made a indorsement. payment Wash- there and as a result total lack of ington, evidence to *18 sixth, seventh, sustain and ninth counts of the eighth have, therefore, indictment. court should directed a verdict of not on those counts. guilty
This is not a case of the commencement of a crime in one so that another, district and its under the completion statute the court either district has Rev. jurisdiction. 731; Stat. sec. 1 There was no of the p. Stat. offense Comp. beginning was in money in Missouri. The of the Washington, that offense and there was no commencement of when the the checks from officer of the Rialto sent St. Louis Company an thereby The latter did not offense begin to defendant. Missouri. must also be reversed because
Fourth. The of the judgment to as error in the refusal of the court when the charge requested inability and announced an to came into court jury agree. of the jury Previous to the retirement defendant’s counsel to the court certain requests jury, submitted charge seven, numbered ten and eleven twelve all. Those were eleven referred to- the Numbers ten and refused. transaction of them depositing the effect of the with the Riggs referred to many Bank. The other instructions of the ques- and material case, subject tions arising court. Aftor the court had concluded his trial then before the he that he had been jury added “asked main charge certain declarations give here, for the defendant counsel been main, I covered they have, while think were the in- you.” (They I will them to yet charge, give described.) and. above structions requested in con- law, “These abstract which I propositions give are it. charge, fully nection more perhaps amplifying with.the. them, they I inasmuch as are asked, willing give .am retired, of law.” The then general propositions jury contain BUKTON 305 SPATES. Opinionof the Court. U. S. at o’clock Saturday out from’ until evening and after being o’clock without Monday morning agreeing, the following the court in relation into court and returned course of that the court In the duty jurors. to their as follows: said to the jury I
“I from this Mr. what letter, Foreman, may gather I would like to ask the foreman of the jury incorrect about. ' I not want to know how many how are divided. do stand you for many or how but to know the conviction, acquittal, .way number who stand the one and the number who stand I like the way. another would statement from the foreman. “The Foreman: Eleven one.
“The stand eleven I to one. gather Court: In the from the communication. of that fact I feel con- light to make a statement to and in you, strained to use making Court the United Supreme States as language United, (164 492.) found in Allen v. States.” *19 jury The court then the relation to its to duty if the that possible, jury should, directed the agree light of the comments the' court then retire made, and make a serious to arrive at a verdict the attempt casé. Counsel for the defendant then asked the court to indicate to the jury that the to requests theretofore, by asked the charge defendant and which were by court, the constitute given as much a part— If will you
“The Court: a moment the jury may retire. wait I your “Mr. Honor to state to the beg jury— Krum: “The Court: a moment then Stop I will your hear will, I after the jury retire, hear argument. counsel if they have to say, any anything exceptions they may towish take The court here handed the charge.” foreman of the jury the charge instructions heretofore referred to and directed to jury retire for further consideration of their verdict.
“Mr. Lehman: I believe that the to requests charge do.not in the manner by made defendant and by the given to court were as jury, they should have given been, the suggestions by made the court at the being time, that they were mere ab von. cxovi—20 TERM,
Opinion of the Court. statements, stract which had the effect deprive to them of of their something force, they when were not intended as mere abstractions and were by believed counsel to have specific reference to case; and those as instructions well as others to be to ought called the attention of the We must ex- jury. cept here as earnestly as it is in our power do, against chargé court made now.
“The If you I will Court: except, allow exception. “Mr. Krum: What I to do in desire jury presence was to ask your Honor to indicate to the as it jury, was evident jury did not that it a fact understand, that the re- quests by were charge court, ac- recognized quiesced court, court and as given by just much a your part Honor’s as that which the court read as from the court emanating itself.
“The I did tell the so jury Saturday. Court: “Mr. Krum: I submit it apparent they is that do not under- are just stand that as much to be controlled part part. instructions other That from evident made. inquiry “The court has endeavored to answer the only Court: made and that is all I think request jury, should be done.”
We think court have should instructed the as re by counsel for the defendant, and its quested refusal case very do so was Here was a great error. doubt in the It had deliberated for jury. minds some of than more and been unable to thirty-six hours verdict. The agree made counsel' for requests charge originally at that time been received abstract propositions had of law, *20 with the which the court connection gave charge, saying that he was to them inasmuch as they asked, were willing give does, and as contained of law. It propositions general the bill of appear exceptions not from defendant’s counsel by court, then to those remarks the but the excepted when returned into court and their announced jury subsequently STATES. Opinion of the Court. for' saw the immediately to defendant inability counsel agree, to the made charge of having importance requests extreme as abstract or general the not jury, court the regarded case which affected the law, requests but propositions in' case; facts the proved reference the then on trial with commenced to retired, they pró- so, again before the jury the the to the but subject court, their pound requests jury retire, them the to1 before instructed court listening set forth between court then above colloquy followed and counsel.' some of jurors,
Balanced the minds of as the case defendant’s of at as to the mind guilt existing .doubts it where most extreme care and caution'1 was a case oné, least that the in order necessary rights legal attitude of the case as be preserved. should Considering court for in when returned into it existed the jury further entitled, matter of we think the defendant structions, to the asked previous for regard legal right, the court under which had-been granted requests charge, a matter of circumstances and was not discretion stated, as to the should, not, whether should jury A may turned thing character those have requests. slight balance the accused under the circumstances shown he have not to remained record, ought longer with the characterization of his requests burdened to charge, he made-by and when asked for the assertion court, materiality validity court of the of those which requests to have already made, court had ought granted been . request. must addition,
We say practice ought not to grow when into up jury, court because inquiring brought is unable to how agree, divided; by such meaning not how stand for or how many many conviction stand question, but acquittal, meaning proportion division, way may be. a practice division Such not to be ...commended, may we cannot see how it because be material *21 TERM,
308 ' J., dissenting. U. Hablan, 196 S. for the court to understand the of division of proportion opin- ion the All that the said in jury. to the among judge regard of- the duty fairly and en- propriety honestly deavor to could have been said without agree for the asking fact as the of their do proportion division; and we not think that the proper administration the such knowl- law requires (cid:127) a such on the edge permits part of question. presiding may easily Cases be where a judge. imagined of this practice kind lead to this influences, and for it might improper reason obtain. ought (cid:127) Our is, conclusion judgment reversed must cause remanded District with di- Court Missouri to. new grant rections trial.
JSo ordered. Mr. Justice Harlan., dissenting.
I dissent from much of so opinion holds judgment the offenses defendant, based on against checks made at St. Louis-and mentioned the sixth, seventh, and ninth were cbmmitted in counts, this eighth District, where the checks by him; .were received and not St. Louis, at bank where were paid which they were drawn n his benefit. I-am of' opinion that the Riggs National Bank, from upon receiving accitsed, became, checks every sense, substantial his representative to- agent present receiye thereof; proceeds case, checks and' means of checks, compensation offense those receiving, for services violation of the statute was rendered committed Louis, not at In strict sense, at St. no Washington. title or checks National ownership passed Riggs Bank, of an in the case unconditional sale, consummated by actual delivery,.of for the tangible, personal property recovery off which the owner possession could, maintain an right, name; action in his own if the for, St. Louis bank on which the drawn had refused to or honor accept no- them, STATES. r. Harlan, J., dissenting. 196 U. S. could have been maintained all, checks,
action on v. Bank. Bank Republic National Riggs Whitman, v. National Bank 156; Wall. 152, First Millard, Railway Johnston, St. Louis 344; &c. *22 634, 643. Yardley, Fourth Bank 574; Street that sent mail from by made Louis and were at St. The -checks by of an assumed in obligation to the accused city discharge in client, him and his as between and, at that city, his client com- subject, of any agreement the absence special him before the by Department for' services rendered pensation when the to have been made only really deemed could which, were directly the bank on were paid checks Bank received when the National It true that Riggs drawn. account of accused on its books and (cid:127)'redited the checks bank arose, there between that arnounu thereof, with the But when only the relation of debtor creditor. him, credited, liable, so he became account at that bank was his bank failed to accept pay contract —if the Louis St. implied amount back the bank an when presented pay the check —to Na- credit on the books of the Riggs he received equal accept If the bank had refused to tional Bank. St. Louis if the had then checks when accused pay presented, his client on with the latter him, sued its contract original have that he re- recovery could not resisted upon ground compensation by ceived his account at the having Washington with thé credited the amount of checks. Suppose bank after day had been on the Washington accused indicted Bank, were indorsed to the National Riggs the checks when at the the checks were honored or paid presented could have bank, Louis he that case been convicted under St. by proof the statute that he received such at the former credit for the amount of he could Clearly bank the checks? not. Yet n if it been, have be true within the that he was compensated, Na- when his account with meaning statute, Riggs As Bank amount the cheeks. tional credited with the true, he in .any between the accused his client, not, TERM, 1904. ' ' (cid:127). Statement the Case.
sense, for the services compensated to have alleged been ren- dered violation of the until statute, payment of the checks Louis bank he was relieved of all liability National Bank from his Riggs arising indorsing to it. The accused is to be Regarded received, having St. .Louis, for his compensation services, because the check made in his there to his paid representative. behalf was was, therefore, offense consummated at that and the city, Federal jurisdiction. Court at St. Louis had
Nor, my does the opinion, record show error, in re- spect nf instructions substantial prejudice accused; no for which error the judgment, should-be re- versed.
It me seems to reversing judgment tire grounds stated opinion court sacrificed sub- .has stance mere result, form. The I submit, well illustrates Qui maxim: haeret .in litera haeret in cortice. familiar
UNITED STATES v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Argued No. January 3, 4, 1905.— January 16,1905. Decided The United company, States made contract with the steel for the'use of process patented. provided described as The contract in case it judicially time company decided “that was not should .legally the.patent process entitled under product pay- and the royalties royalties ment In a company cease. suit should attempted deny validity .the United patent States while admitting outstanding there was Held, no decision it. that this open. was not defense . further, case, Held contract, under the of this properly circumstances construed, process actually extended to the used- even if some- varied patent. what from that described facts are stated opinion.