Document: 370 U.S. 650 82 S.Ct. 1399 8 L.Ed.2d 750 R. Milo GILBERT, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 478. Argued April 10, 1962. Decided June 25, Fred Okrand and Albert A. Dorn, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Kirby W. Patterson, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, an accountant whose business included acting others in federal income tax matters, was charged a thirty-five-count indictment with violations 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), U.S.C.A. 18 1001, 495, that he had allegedly falsified his clients' returns (§ 7206(2)), forged their endorsements on government tax-refund checks 495), and, by endorsing such checks, made false statements as to matter within jurisdiction agency 1001). The jury convicted thirty-one counts acquitted four others. On appeal, 9 Cir., 291 F.2d 586, 597, judgment conviction set aside twenty-nine counts, new trial ordered, because Court Appeals found evidence used Government support these been illegally seized. remaining two (Nos. 21 22), charging petitioner having Daniel H. Bartfield Charline refund (18 affirmed.1 2 It stipulated at endorsed own handwriting out to: 3 'Daniel H & Charlene R 4 c/o Gilbert 519 Taft Building 5 Hollywood 28 Calif' 6 following manner: 7 Gilbert, Trustee'2 Petitioner claimed written power attorney, signed both Bartfields office, authorized him endorse 'Trustee' after name served designate particular bank account where deposited held all client-refunds until December each year, against possibility there being adjustment contingent fee settled. acknowledged signatures attorney were theirs, but disclaimed recollection signing instrument, denied they ever orally or writing receive checks.3 premises Appeals, concluding sufficient permit find without authority (a conclusion which present purposes we accept), one who endorses check payee then own, agent, when fact has no authority, is guilty forgery under 495. We granted certiorari consider correctness view statute. 368 816, 93, 23. While not mentioned petition certiorari, though discussed briefs merits, Tenth Circuit, Appeals' decision case, 'forgery' 495 does embrace purported, misrepresented, endorsement (hereafter called simply 'agency endorsement'). Selvidge v. United States, 290 894. For reasons given this agree Circuit. I. 10 At outset are met Government's suggestion statutory construction question need be faced case. Before it assumed (which before case reached some reason become mislaid) 'by Trustee.' (Emphasis added.) That mistaken assumption for, themselves show (supra, U.S., p. 651, S.Ct., 1400), 'by' 'R. 11 Arguing might have word Gilbert's signature did purport indicate endorsement, merely intended designation routing deposit 'client' accounts, suggests plain out, agency-endorsement truth presented record. 12 cannot so easily dispose accepting premise could act representative capacity surely also permissible purported make instances, thus left speculate theory its verdict rested. Indeed record us seems aspect tried, least primarily, theory. judge's instructions phase best opaque. Having refused instruct 495,4 point undertook explain difference between nonagency endorsement.5 Nor can perceive any force further jury's rested describing himself fictious never occupied status. Since charge names Bartfields, another way version transaction. 13 In posture things proposal bypass brought here must rejected. If constitute entitled proper instructions. II. 14 original predecessor enacted 1823, Stat. 771, respects pertinent throughout intervening years substantially same form There significant legislative history illuminating predecessors. deciding whether 'forges' embraces endorsements, therefore important inquire, recognizes, into common-law meaning time 1823 statute enacted. absence anything contrary fair assume Congress sense. 15 1847 decided English Regina White, Car. K. 404, 175 Eng.Rep. 167 (Nisi Prius, Book 6), 'indorsing bill exchange indorse per procuration, forgery, making.'6 K., 412, Eng.Rep., 170 6). This sure twenty-four came books. says should regarded ill-advised temporary departure from earlier common law 'soon recognized' remedied passage Forgery Act 1861, 24 25 Vict., c. 98, 24, defining include unauthorized signings 'per procuration,' intent defraud.7 draws East, Pleas Crown, 850—859 (1803); Hawkins, 70; Coke, Third Institute (1797 ed.) 169; Blackstone, Commentaries, 247, existed American passed. 16 readily accepted. fifteen judges participated White unanimously only considering authorities. Such those authorities now relied means clear would them. Thus Lord East's comments, supra, 852, were: 'Forgery denotes making includes every alternation addition true instrument), malo animo, instrument purpose fraud deceit. * (The ancient modern authorities) offence consisting fraudulent altering instruments.' original). Coke,8 Hawkins,9 Blackstone,10 cited Government, more persuasive towards view. inclusive definition contained statutes, 655, 1402 note 7, proves broader deemed desirable Parliament. And finally, early accepted representing law. re Extradition Tully, C.C., 20 F. 812. since followed most state courts country. See, e.g., People Bendit, 111 Cal. 274, 276—280, 43 P. 901, 902, 31 L.R.A. 831; Pasadena Investment Co. Peerless Casualty Co., 132 Cal.App.2d 328, 331, 282 P.2d 124, 125, 52 A.L.R.2d 203; State Lamb, 198 N.C. 423, 425—426, 152 S.E. 154, 155—156; Dexter Horton Nat. Bank Seattle States Fidelity Guaranty 149 Wash. 343, 346—351, 270 799, 800—802; Greathouse 512, 514; Marteney 216 760, 763 764. 17 foregoing considerations combine lead 'forge' taken endorsment. So Circuit lower squarely dealing point,11 sound rejecting conclusion. than (290 F.2d, 896 2) scattered cases opposite view.12 impressed argument scope aimed protecting fraud.13 Other statutes ample enough protect statements. See §§ 1001—1026, 1001—1026. Still further, construing other generally drawn distinction spurious fictitious makings. supra (construing 2314, 2314); Wright 172 310, 311—312 2314; Carabasi, 292 362, 364 1622(h), 1622(h)). Where 'falsity lies representation facts, genuineness execution,' forgery. 763—764. Of course, broaden concept 'federal' definition. hold yet done so. conclude petitioner's sustained upon However, prepared stage say succeed Bartfields' capacity, think open retrial them instructions, conjunction already remanded reasonable time. Accordingly, vacated District proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. 19 Judgment BLACK, CLARK, STEWART dissent, believing do forger falsely purports payee's agent. FRANKFURTER WHITE took part consideration provides: 'Whoever makes, alters, forges, counterfeits deed, order, certificate, receipt, contract, writing, obtaining receiving, enabling person, either directly indirectly, obtain officers agents thereof, sum money. 'Shall fined $1,000 imprisoned ten years, both.' Counts 22, identical form, charge: 'On about 2, 1958, defendant knowingly wilfully Treasury Check payees, Chalrene Bartfield, receiving said amount agents.' As Mrs. Bartfield's first (Charline) incorrectly spelled 'Chalrene' 'Charlene' other, former misspelling carried over indictments. (Note 1, supra.) name, inscription, 'Mile.' No claim wrong returns, related. Petitioner's requested rejected, 1. 'One executes purporting face executed agent principal named therein, execute C(al.) 274 (43 831) (1896); International Finance Corporation People's Keyser (D.C.), 27 523, 527. I ALR 231 n.' 2. 'A follows—name trustee, Title 18, Section 495).' dictionary 'trustee,' judge these: 'Where represents taxpayer preparation presumption rights governed terms employment, applies ordinary agency. 'Also, prosecute giving payment gives collect check. But may writing.' specifically addressed elements offense given, seek basis section. judge, summation, instructed 'that if prisoner, indorsement, misrepresented Tomlinson (the defendant's employer) defraud bankers, Tomlinson, ought guilty.' 406, 168 presently effect England, 1913, Geo. 5, 27, 1(2), provides document 'if whole material thereof behalf person nor authorise *.' 'Lord Coke (Third 169) indeed confine (forgery) strictness another, long ago agreed too narrow definition.' 852 (1803). Hawkins interpreted even altenation adding 0 500 5000, 'may properly Writing, Name Seal Hand counterfeited.' 70, 183 (1762). Common Law seemeth Offence falsly fraudulently Matter Record, authentick publick Nature 182 'Also Notion doth seem much consist counterfeiting Man's Seal, often innocently, endeavouring give Appearance Truth mere Deceit Falsity, impose World solemn Id., 183. 'Forgery, crimen falsi, defined (at law) be, 'the alteration prejudice man's right' Commentaries (Christian ed. 1809), 247—248. read Osgood, Fed.Cas.No.15,971a, statute, pointing different Ex parte Hibbs, 421; Yeager 59 App.D.C 11, 32 402; Tommasello, 64 F.Supp. 467; Quick Service Box St. Paul Mercury Indemnity 95 15. proviso disclaiming preempt criminal respect matters covered Federal suggests, wider Cf. 3231, similar general relating found.

Category: 0