New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-13


This was substantially emphasized wheh cbaree
for defendant requested the cour 10 the acts
CHARGED were committed with criminal intent the
defendant Is entitled to an acqulttan in these
To this request the court responder III -
words IT charge you unless the act was colll, nn
ted with intent to defra1d as e a%cpofa refuse
charge as requested.
ASPECTS OF THE REFUSAL"
This refusal IS complained of in a double aspect
In the first place, it entirely withdrew from t"e
consideration of the jury the question as 10 ""oV
the signature Of Bunger was written WIN 0r'i''
nal intent. Thus 1t consistent with the ruins
which was made during the summing up a,.u III, y
was seemingly inconsistent with the supseGurhe. ho
ing as the effect OF Wimans belief, " crimI
believed was material only in the question W - ~
nal intent. II that belief bore legitima'eE wv he
guilt innocence II was because e Dog ~, charge
Intent. When therefore. the court TeI"s'u initial m
thot the defendant was entitled TO an acqu''ai On,
less the acts committed WIN criii i - the
/, attributed crlmlnaty as matter %. Law I,
unauthorized act OF signing Bullingers name. II
was eauivaeni to saying I" could Consider nothing
save the fact that Il was made ny Wn laii, ne de-
MED INA, the jury should also have consldertd ' ne
surrounding circumsiances lnue, no rlos. ~ tn,
olS ' Nov sbon5 also have considered Wimans be-
lief as to his right to use the name OF e h a' ,a%
ncr ne aid Winan testified that When ne n.y. I
Bullinger's name upon the PACK -, 'ai that he
had no intention OF dcfraulins Dun o. u. ," o.
time by that act: that ne used tulnES' - draw
p hyce o. in his OWN name and because ne did not
make his account IN link h9 V of this icsti-
ntn5y-1o matter how clear the criminal intent may
anrear from all the facts nay. even from uiu'S-
puted facts-still the question was LOT 'no July
4 TwOFOLD DIFFICULTY.
'. .,o socor1 Mace. the question Of criminal In
tcnt was treated as something above ana oe!o"i
,ha statutory intent to defraul. which additional
s,n,c,hing WAS not cssenta! to the finding OF gut
IN this connection it will be observed that ""'.S
ro4,s,ng 70 charge as requested with regard TO
criminal intent. tie learned judge ga cnatSt ' d
,,,'aes tho ac, was committed with intent 10 ~
fraud as already explained to me jury ,ts IN
PENDANT was entitled 70 an acquiita ne udoaqraui
Which had previously been explained 70 me 3u's'
had relation to the mere aSt o, Wi,nan use,
TO the independent nien; with WhCh w ,,l'',. ,',i
the name ne fraud committed upon Dun & Co.
soey To- 1nG of moneys from their bank to that
~ no defendant Second. even with regard - me
Ui , tIe s'c, IL DISTINGUISHED between an intent -
49, No. i ond a criminal intent The learned judge
aid not refuse charge as request W o,,,,.,1
the intent TO defraud under MS xnrc not under
stood to be synonymous vas Ra,ny fniHn, -
dn(rsn5 and in the same connection eXpIcity r.,
fused 10 charge the necessity Of hndIhs o,i ne
i"tter unnecessary and the former alone ciu0.4 a.
For as have seen he had preTlouSI mo- counsel
Intent 10 defraud the statute says ho'hms ""o"'
Il may be said that the statutory intent 20
dcfraud is the crimna, intent requisite 10 suS.e'
- ronvi,tion II this De So K should nave 10,
applied TO the act Of signing a. w.. no1.d hive
Ran informed that the proposition as 10 cf'h'"it
intent was covered by the charge as 20 ILL., =,
defraud and therefore reiused on, n I'M rere
was repeti;ious In place OF ms de e1r as ex
led 10 believe that the intent 10 Germ -" ~
palned to them, was the Only pueso'"" ~, ,hire
determinations nat r9n5 intent Which the coun
eel COR the defendant had embraced Wll.lIil ~
proposition and that such criniha. intent va
a prerequisite 10 gult
THE JI-RY MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED
Again feel constrained to say that az al events
shore eeerns 70 be least reasonable doubt as 10
whe,her the Jury may not have been confused Win
regard 70 the question Of criminal intent. ana may
not have been lef, in uncertainty upon ihat heau
need scarcely say that II Is extremely NJ ~ =. /,
finding OF guilt. and that. however Sl.", AZ =, g.
vincing the testimony may be on that hsai, ~, y
st question FOR the jury crepe srokes vs.
pco,le "a X y; Duny We. People. % y. - 81,
In he People vs. Flack the Court oi APP NS No.
reversing Judgment Of my own ihat h'".ND' -.
ence Of A criminal intention, the question ma; ",S'
he ruled as one Of law. but should away De SUI
mitted 10 the jury This too was VHsv .. ~.
demeanor while the present case is one OF .''oIS.
II was also held that the presumption ina P sun
Intends the ordinary consequences OF M iI'a '2,
applied 70 criminal cases not prrSrlili s Un con
cinsion tiDon a question OF fact Getting FiknS "
rope ~ Words the criminal an essential
irgrndisnt in the Indictment is trav'Ifane ana w.
attendant may testify as 70 his intent mus I'm
nal intent is always a question OF iacl u ~ 9""
bere are Diner assignments OF error which pre-
sent interesting II not serious questions J. WI
not be necessary. however. 70 cohsl''I .'r,.', 7
mDon ,he TWO points which have been discussed !
deem il my duty 10 grant V'''"''"N
able doubt.