Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1860-06-08

dcIphia, 10, &C., subject. to sight dratts."
Also, "the amount subject to be drawn at
sight, then remaining on deposit with solv-
eat banks and bankers of the country, spec
flying each city or town, and the amount
deposited in EACH"
To convict the defendant under this
indictment, the State must prove, beyond
reasonable doubt, the truth of the following
facts to-wit:
/. That the defendant was, on the first Monday
and down to and including the 5th day OF October,
1859, the Cashier OF the Muscatine Branch OF the
state BANK OF Iowa
2. That, as such Cashier, the defendant made the
monthly statement alleged in the Indictment, show
ing the condition of said Muscatine Branch on the
first Monday of October, A. 1859; and that said
statement contained entries hich represented that
the said Branch had on deposit subject TO sight
drafts, the following sums-vz: with Atwood
Co.. New York city, $5,70s.67 with Park Bank,
New York city, " ssss1 80 Win State Savings
| 8. That these said entries, or some OF them. are
materially false and that the defendant knew them
to be false when he made them or caused them to
| be made; ... ass.a.d T. 3: a4G- +ai
T. That the said entries were made with one or
more of the following INrENTs-viz: l, With intent
to njure or defraud the said Muscatine Branch;
2, With intent to deceive the officers and agents Of
the State Bank, appointed to inspect the affairs OF
| said Branch s, With intent and in such manner
|
| Bank Act. 90 s.i- --'' F" s.''
| Having thus exhibited to you the essential
elements which enter into and compose the
offense with which the defendant is charged,
and the essential facts which must be estab
lished in order to entitle the government to
ask for conviction, l now proceed to call
your attention to defense which is urged,
and which, if you find to be true, will dispose
of the case, and supercede the necessity of
your making any further inquiry as to the
truth of the facts alleged in tne indictment.
allude to the question made by the
defendants counsel, that he was, at the time
charged in the indictment, by reason of the
state Of his mind, not criminally responsible
for any act which he might do; in a word,
that the defendant was insane, which insanity
is claimed to have been superinduced by the
defendants antecedent and habitual use of
intoxicating liquors. .
In regard to insanity from drunkenness,
the law makes and recognizes a material
distinction between criminal acts which are
the Immediate result of the fit of intoxcation,
and committed aohile 1t lasts, and acts the
result Of insanity, or mental unsoundness,
remotely produced by previous habits of
intemperance; the former acts being punish
able by the law, while the latter acts are not
punishable.
The presumption of the law is that the
defendant was sane; and, if he is proved
guilty of the charge against him, it is for him
to make out to the satisfaction of the jury
that he was insane, in order to be exempt
from criminal responsibility.
| If you find that the defendant made the
statement alleged in the indictment, and that,
at the time such statement was made, the
defendant was laboring under a temporary
mental incapacity, which destroyed his moral
and intellectual agency, his power ofreasoning
correctly, or his perceptions of right and
wrong, then he is irresponsible, and is entitled
to your verdict.
Although you find that the defendant made
the statement alleged (if he made it) in the
the indictment, and although, at the time it
was made, he was not in that peculiar condi-
ton known as delirium tremens, yet if, at the
time it was so made, his mind was SO wrecked
and shattered by the previous and long con-
tinued use of alcoholic stimulants that he was
not conscious that he was doing wrong act
(if the statement was false), if the act done
did not seem to him to be wrong act, then
the defendant cannot be holden criminally
amenable for the doing of such act.
If you find that the defendant was not in a
mental condition to be responsible for acts
done by him, then this is the end of the
States case. .
But, if you find that the defendant is thus
responsible, you viii then proceed to inquire
from the evidence as to the truth of the facts
which have stated above to be essential to
be established, in order to maintain the charge
against the defendant.
If the defendant represented, in the alleged
statement, that there was on deposit with
Atwood & Co., New York city, the sum Of
S., 70S. 81, the State must show this statement
to have been knowingly false.
If the defendant had been advised by a
responsible party in Chicago that remittance
had been sent to Atwood & Co !, to the credit
of the Muscatine Branch, and if, at the time
when the alleged statement was made, the
defendant supposed that said remittance was
to the credit OF the Muscatine Branch with
Atwood i Co.. and further, if the amount
represented in the statement would not be
materially false in Case such remittance had
been made to and received by Atwood & Co.,
then the defendant would not be liable to
conviction for making such entry or repre-
sentation. .r.Ir.
/ But, if the amount represented to be at the
house of Atwood & Co. was not there by some
So, 900, and if the defendant knew it was not
there, and, knowing this, made statement
showing it to be there, then this would be the
making of false entry or statement within
the meaning of the law. And so as to the
alleged representations in respect to the
amounts subject to sight drafts at the Park
Bank and State Savings Association. The
State must show that the statements were
made by the defendant, and that they were
false, and that the defendant knew their
falsty when he made them.
With the view and for the purpose Of
showing said alleged statements to be FALSE,
the government has produced employees
connected with the Park Bank, the Savings
Association and Atwood & Co., and who
have been sworn as witnesses in the case.
1t is claimed by the defendants counsel
that, from the nature of the employment of
these persons in the several institutions above
named, they could not reliably KNOW what
was the state Of accounts between these and
the Muscatine Branch. These witnesses have
testified very fully as to the nature of their
several duties, as to their means of knowledge,
and it is therefore for you to say what weight,
if any, their testimony is entitled to-; merely
remarking that their testimony, taken in
connexi) IN with the other facts and ci;cum-
stances proved, must be of such nature as
to clearly satisfy you that there was no such
amounts on deposit, subject to sight draft
with the parties named, as the defendant is
alleged to have represented in the October
| statement.
1t the Muscatine Branch had sent on to the
institutions named in the indictment time
exchange bought in good faith, for the credit
of said Branch, and at the time of sending it
charged it to the parties to whom it was sent,
on the books of the bank, supposing it would
be paid and credited, and if the statement
alleged in the indictment was made from the
books, and no wrong was intended or designed,
then the defendant would not be guilty.
The INrENTs alleged in the indictment, or
| soxno ono or mara of them must he nroxed