The New York herald., 1873-11-23
Taintor, the Defaulting Cashier, De-
MED a New Trial---Important
Opinion of Judge Benedict.
Bankruptcy Proceedings in the Case
Of Jay Cooke & Co. and the
Union Trust Company.
FRANK L. TAINTOR.

At tho recent term OF the United States Circuit
Court Frank +. Taintor was convicted before
Judge Benedict OF having embezZled $t25,oOo, the
property OF the Atlantic National Bank OF this
city, OF which institution he had been cashier.
few days after the conviction counsel for the
prisoner-Messrs A. Oakley Hall. J. O. Carter and
John Sherwood-made a motion for o now trial, on
the ground that Judge Benedict had erred in ex-
Diuding an offer OF evidence to show that
the prisoner, In using the money OF the
bank Ia stock specuaticns, had acted with
tho knowledge and consent Of the Presi-
dent and some of the directors OF the
bank. This motion was argued before tho full
Court, consisting OF Judges Woodruff, Batchford
aud Benedict, and. there being perfect concur
renee OF opinion on the part Of the Court that no
error had been committed By the exclusion OF the
evidence in question, Judge Benedict yesterday
rendered tho decision Of the Court, refusing new
trial to Taintor, embodying the same In lengthy
and elaborate opinion.
OPINION OF JUDGE BENEDICT.
The defendant was indicted under the 55th Sec
tiOn OF the act OF June s. 1864, LOT embezzling, ao
stracting and willuly misappying the moneys
ne was cashier. with intent to defraud the asso-
citation. The indictment contains numcr-
Gus counts designed to cover numerous gonsTa
transactions were by no means OF distinct counts
charged as embezzlements, distractions and MS
dictment that the acts were done with the intent
to tnjure and defraud the association on the trial
took moneys and funds or the bank and used them
In stock sDeculati0ns, carried on In his own name,
by depositing the same with stock broker as
margins for the stocks bought, or represented to
have been bought on his account. which were TO be
held by the broker subject TO his order so long as
he kept With the broker margin OF 10 per cent.
The defendant offered 10 prove that these his acts,
were known to the President and some OF the direc-
tors or the bank and were sanctioned by them,
Dank or which evidence had been given were
intended for the account and benefit OF the bank:
ana were believed by him to have been sanctioned
by the President and some OF the directors,
although there was no resolution OF the Board OF
ofors not made for the purpose OF contradict
Ing the proof or the commission OF the acts about
which testimony had peen given, but only to
acts were done with intent to injure and deiraud
the association. The evidence offered by the
defendant was excluded, and the suggestion being
made by the Court that In case the defendant
should 30 advised to move for new trial, to
tsa S an woea ne qn De
TO take part in the hearing OF such
motion. motion for new trial was accordingly
made and heard by the three Judges, and | am
now assigned TO deliver the opinion OF the Court.
The ruling called in question upon this motion IN
volycd two propositions-namely that the guilty
intent charged in the Indictment was shown BY the
proof OF the acts done by the defendant and, fur
ths that the facts offered to be proved By the de-
intent. Ithas hardly been doubted upon this mo-
ton that the first OF these propositions Is correct
The correctness OF the secono is strenuousiy de-
MED, and Is now to be determined. II Is general
rule OF law that man must be held to intend the
necessary consequences or his acts. This rule Is
applicable as well TO cases oil crime rs in civil
causes. for whatever proves intent anywhere
proves y cyerywhere. lt has often been SO @ ap-
PROOF OF GUILTY INTENT
Afforded by evidence OF acts knowingly done has
been held TO be conclusive and not oyerthrown ny
proofs Of any other iacts, and this class OF cases
crimes at common law. on this argument 1t was
conceded that. by virtue OF the rule In question,
the guilty intent L conciusyely shown Dy proof OF
tIlat general guilty intent s 50 clearly manifested
thereby as 70 admit OF no question IT appears to
that The rule even thus limited covers the pres
ent case ana justifies the decision made at the
trial: FOR the act done by the defendant was clearly
unlawful, and he is precluded from denying knowl-
edge that 1t was so. He was an oficer OF an aSso-
ciation created under statute which does not
permit any person to make sncn use OF tue lunds
more, the act or the defendant rendered the asso-
ciahon liable to forfeiture OF Its charter. Stll
further 10 cast upon the bank risk which at
tached At the instant OF the doing OF the Act ana
RISK VIGOROUSLY GREAT,
extraordinary In character and outside the bounds
Of proper commercial use. II placed the capital OF
tho bank beyond the control OF the officers OF the
s0cia ion, and II was an unlawful dealing with
the money OF a corporation belonging TO class OF
institutions whose welfare IS intimately connected
With tho pubic welfare which arc liable to he de-
Doeitories OF public moneys and which cannot
Justly be considered to he merely private pccunlary
trusts The act Of the defendant. therefore neces-
narily involved injury not only 10 the association,
but also, II proper sense, to the public, An act
having such characteristics, and Involving such
consequences, when Knowingly done, discloses
nocent. II may therefore, wen be held
that proof OF such m act proves concustvey an
intent to injure, because when knowingly done IL
affords no opportunity for justification or legal
excuse, and manifests so clearly general guilty
intent az TO make it OF no consequence what other
particular intent cocXis.ed Herewith, and to pre-
cudc inquiry as 10 such other intcnts or into the
motives winch impeiled to its commission. A gen.
eroUs motive Is not Inconsistent With guilty
intent. ana proof OF tho one does not disprovc the
other. our opinion therefore, is that the circum.
would not tend to disprovc the guilty intent
charged in the indictment. But 1t is contcndcd
the indictment is framed requires proof Of some.
thing more than the general guilty intent neces.
salIy involved in such misapp!clton 0! the
funds Of national bank, inasmuch as 1t couples
with tho words .'emhczzle, abstract ana witnS
msappy' the words with intent to inju,e or dc.
entA OF Corrupt motive, design TO cheat tho
association out OF money, in order 70 constitute
the offence. IL Is unnecessary to cetcrmne
TO lie taken in connection with the words "ei.
bczze, abstract OF wuly nisappiy." because
this has been assumed by the prosecution, aud the
indictment in each count charged ~ intent 10
tnjurc rna dciraud the association. Ihc question
presented, therefore, IS as to the eject pi oduced
upon the words 'embczzc, abstract or wiliuly
nlisappIy" by the addition OF the words with In.
tent 10 inurc or dcraud the assoctation.n IN con-
Bderng thus phraseoogy IL will be noticed that
whc the word ''cmbe2zle,' aud, perhaps, also the
word labs tract" rcers 10 acts done Tor the bone.
1t OF the actor as against the bank, the word
"misapply' covers acts having no relation 10 the
pccuniary profit or advantage OF the doer thereof.
design 70 make criminal acts done withcu' reitr-
encc 90 personal advantage ~ thus clearly dis.
closed, and u appears that the intention OF the
statute was 10 cover cases OF
UklAWfJL DEALING WITH TliE FUNDS Of IUE BANK
hy ts cCfGerS aithcuah without n corrupt motive.
This lncnon, manifested ,y the insertion OF an
emphatic ard significant terra III the commenre.
mcnt uf the section, II canrot be supposed was IN.
tended 10 pe telealed by tie Subsequent Use oi The
words With intent 10 injure dclraud.n Nor can
such eject be given these words without treating the
wnra "inInrc" rs synonymous with dciiaud, and
a. recrr'ng 10 u ilisappliCation for the benefit OF
tnc loer. lut If the Specification OF inc word 'dc-
fraudn be limited 10 malicious dealing with prop.
crty tor The personal advantage OF the dccr-
aud Il is NOT always 70 bc so limltcd--the
word oiul-fe'i IL not OF such limited APP
pIfrat.cr, and wna, doubtless, inserted TO
ccycr cases o ulsapplicatou, causing injury 10 the
association without benefit 60 the offender. The
or nv be a int yhnro