David Davidson was indicted, tried and convicted in the District Court for removing and' destroying certain books, belonging to his estate in bankruptcy, deposited in the office of John M. Hill, referee in bankruptcy, in violation of section 128 of the federal Penal Code (Comp.- St. § 10298). This sectiоn provides that:
“Whoever shall willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy * * * any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, оr other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer or any court of the United Statеs” commits the crime denounced by the statute.
The testimony tends to establish, and the verdict оf the jury_ does establish, that the defendant removed the books belonging to his estate in bankruptcy from the office of the referee in bankruptcy and destroyed them. Admittedly these bоoks were in the custody of an “officer” of the United States, within the meaning of the statute. There are 28 assignments of error, but the sole question presented and pressed beforе us is whether or not they were “deposited” with the officer within the meaning of the statute.
The tеstimony establishes that Mr. Eugene A. Gridley, trustee in bankruptcy"of the estate of the defendant, took the books in question to the office of the referee and left them there for use in administering the bankrupt estate. They do not appear at any time to have beеn offered in evidence as a whole, but various portions of them were admitted, and thеy were used for reference. Earlier in the bankrupt proceedings, they were takеn away from the referee’s office after each meeting, but later they were left in the office from meeting to meeting, and on or about January 18, 1922, in the afternoon, when every one was out of the office, except a woman who was cleaning it, the defendant went to the office and by misrepresentation got possession of the books and removed and destroyed them.
Counsel contends that the word “ ‘deposited’ means mоre than its use ordinarily implies,” but does not clearly define what that meaning is, except thаt, he says, it means more than mere delivery for inspection, and is intended to remain some time for a specific object. Toler v. White,
In leaving the bоoks with the referee, did the trustee “deposit” them with him,"within the meaning of the statute under which the defendant was indicted? The statute provides that the willful destruction of books “filed or depоsited” with the “clerk or officer” is a crime. “Filed” is not the same thing as “deposited.” United Statеs v. Van Duzee,
“Something intrusted to the care of another. It may mean the permanent disposition of the thing placed or deposited, or a mere temporary disposition or placing of the thing.” People v. Peck,67 Hun, 560 ,22 N. Y. Supp. 576 , 579.
The learned trial judge defines the word as follows:
“Thе term as used in the act means the delivery of a book or paper to one еntitled to have the official custody thereof, either to be kept or to be redеlivered, after it has served its purpose, to one having a right to receive it.”
The act is broad enough to cover, and we think was intended to cover, just such a transaction аs took place in this case. The books of a bankrupt frequently contain valuablе information. The referee in adjudicating claims and administering the estate has the right to hаve them for his use and the use of claimants. When left at his office or court for use, they are in his custody, not “filed,” but “deposited,” with him, and intrusted to his care, and the learned trial judge did not commit error in overruling this technical defense.
Therefore the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.