27 F. Cas. 179 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia | 1837
Lead Opinion
It is contended that the first count of the indictments for uttering the forged notes, is not good under the eighteenth section of the charter of the bank, of the 10th of April, 1816, because it does not aver that the note purported to be a bill or note issued by order of the President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States; and because, neither on the 14th of March, 1836, the date of the note, nor on the 16lh of July, 1837, when the offence was committed, had the Bank of the United States any legal existence ; its charter having been limited to the 3d of March, 1836; nor had the bank, then, any right or authority to issue any such note. And that it is not a good count under the Penitentiary Act for the District of Columbia, because the bank, having no legal existence, could neither be prejudiced nor injured.
I am of opinion that the first count is bad under the eighteenth section of the charter, because it does not aver that the forged note purported to be a bill or note issued by order of the President, Directors, and Company of the said bank.
But I think it a good count under the Penitentiary Act; because I consider the bank as still in existence for this purpose; that is, to protect itself during the period of two years from the 3d of March, 1836, given by the twenty-first section of the charter, which declares, that “ notwithstanding the expiration of the term for which the said corporation is created, it shall be lawful to use the corporate name, style, and capacity, for the purpose of suits; for the final settlement and liquidation of the affairs and accounts of the corporation; and for the sale and disposition of their estate, real, personal, and mixed.”
It is not said by whom the corporate capacity may be used for those purposes. The use is not confined to the corporation. Their capacity to sue, and to be sued, continues. The United States may use it for the purpose of vindicating the laws of the United States, and for the punishment of offenders. The corpo
2. The second count is not good under the eighteenth section of the bank charter, and, I presume, was not framed in reference to that section. Nor is it good under the Penitentiary Act, because it does not aver that the act was done to the prejudice of the right of any person or body politic. I am inclined, however, to think that it may be supported as a count at common law ; but I shall be willing to hear a motion in arrest of judgment if the verdict should be against the defendant upon that count only.
There is another indictment, (No. 146,) against this defendant, the two first counts of which are framed upon the nineteenth section of the bank charter, for having in his possession blank notes engraved and printed after the similitude of notes issued by the corporation of the Bank of the United States with intent to use them in forging and counterfeiting notes issued by that corporation ; the first count says with intent to defraud the said corporation ; the second count says, with intent to defraud the person or persons to whom the same should be uttered and passed.
I do not see any valid objection to these two counts.
The third and fourth are for having in his possession three .forged and counterfeited engraved papers purporting to be bank notes of the President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States for the payment of ten dollars each, after the similitude of the notes of the said corporation, with intent to utter and pass them as true with intent (in the third count) to defraud the Bank of the United States; and (in the fourth count) with intent to'defraud the person or persons to whom the same should be passed, contrary to the form of the statute, &c.
I do not know under what statute these third and fourth counts have been framed. They are not good at common law.
Concurrence Opinion
concurred as to the indictment No. 146, and as to
the second count of the other indictment; but not as to the first count; because he thought the Bank of the United States was not in existence for this purpose, and therefore could not be prejudiced or injured. (Thruston, J., absent.)
Dernunter overruled as to the two first counts in the indictment No. 146; and sustained as to the third and fourth counts. Sen-
Upon the trial, the Court (neni. con.) permitted evidence to be given by the United States, that a parcel of counterfeit checks and drafts on other banks; and others printed on bank-paper, not filled up, were found in the defendant’s possession. (See United States v. Shuster, at March term, 1835, in this Court, where the Court permitted the United States to give evidence that certain instruments for picking locks, &c., were found upon the prisoner.) ,
Verdict, guilty upon the four indictments; and the prisoner was sentenced, in full Court, as follows: Upon the two first counts in the indictment No. 146, fine and imprisonment, as mentioned above.
Upon the indictment No. 154, to the penitentiary for two years next after the expiration or other termination of his term of imprisonment in No. 146.
Upon the indictment No. 155, for two years next after the expiration, or other termination of his term of imprisonment in No. 154; and upon the indictment No. 156, for three years next after the expiration or other termination of his term of imprisonment in No. 155; making seven years in all.