The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-12-14
Sensible and Sound.

Sensible and SOUND.
wards, specially presiding in Luzerne
county, ruled that eX-banker F. V.
Rockafellow could not be multiply tried
and convicted on charges involving vir-
tually identical facts, howl arose in
the Wilkes Barre press. We did not at
that time take notice of it, because the
opinion in full had not been placed on
file. Now that it is accessible to pub
lie scrutiny we take occasion to re-
mark that it is good common sense
and predict that it will, upon review
stand also as good law. The nub to the
whole opinion is in this extract:
The act of assembly under which the
defendant is indicted reads as follows:
"Any banker, broker or officer of any
trust or savings institution, national. state
or private bank. who shall take and re-
ceiye money from a depositor, with the
Knowledge that he, they or the bank is
at the time insovent, shall be guilty OF
embezzlement and shall be punished by :,
fine in double the amount so received and
imprisoned from one to three years In
the penitentiary." The contention of the
commonwealth is that under this law the
defendant may be indicted, convicted and
sentenced for every deposit he received
from each depositor. While it is not par;
of the record. 1t is notorious fact an'l
one that may be used by way of argument,
that the defendant. during the period Of
his Insolvency, received deposits from al
least 800 people If the contention of the
commonwealth is correct, the defendant
could be tried and convicted on 300 indict-
merits and Il minimum punishment of 30
years or maximum punishment of 900
years inflicted upon him. While the law
looks with a jealous eye upon the custo-
dian Of trust funds and requires from him
absolute and unimpeachablc integrity in
his tiduciary position. we are unwilling to
give such Il construction to the act OF
assembly in question as would make such
results as we have indicated possible. Ii
would be a violation of the principle that
penal statutes must be construed strictly
This. whether law or not, is obviously
common sense. But Judge Edwards
strengthens his decision on strictly le-
gal grounds by saying:
In considering the legal merits of the
question now before us, we are not with
out guidance in certain principles recog.
nZod by our courts in the administration
of criminal law. Take the case of n per
son convicted of selling or furnishing in.
toxicated liquors on Sunday. 1t may be
that the evidence of the commonwealth in
such case was confined to one particular
Sunday. Nevertheless the conviction
would be a bar TO, a prosecution for fur
nshing liquors on any other Sunday with
in two years previous to the finding of the
indictment Let it be assumed that
the person convicted was guilty of
furnishing liquors on every sun
day for whole year and that
there was abundant proof of 1t. Such an
assumption is not unwarrantable as We
know from actual experience in the trial
of such cases. The furnishing of liquor
on one Sunday is an entirely distinct and
separate act from the furnishing of it or
another Sunday. 1t may he well argued
that each act constitutes an independent
offense. Each act is six days apart In
point of time. The liquor is furnished to
different individuals on each Sunday The
line of continuity can only be found in the
fact that the acts complained of are simi-
lar in character and are committed by the
same person The same principle Is rec
ogniZed In the, trial of cases for selling
intoxicating liquors without license
Each sale has all the elements of crime
and is sufficient basis for conviction
Yet we allow the commonwealth to travel
over period OF two years and find evi-
dence of all sales during this period, and d
conviction, where the evidence might he
as to only one sale, is bar to prosecu.
tion for other sales during the statutory
period of two years We may also refer
to prosecutions for adultery and for en-.
bezzlement by q clerk OF. a servant. In
these cases each act on the part of thc
offender may he considered in one sense
an Independent crime, but one conviction
is often mantle of charity covering two
years of criminal practices In the case al
bar 1t will be observed that the offenses
described in the two indictments have the
same constituent elements, with only one
exception They concern the same bank
the same banker the same condition of in.
solVency and the same knowledge of ir.
solvency. The only difference is that tn.
two deposits. received on the same day. ir
one case were received from Mr.. Long ant
In the other case from Mrs. Meters Bo,l
deposits were received previous to The
finding of the Indictment in the first case
Under such circumstances a conviction ir
the first case is a bar to prosecution II
the second.
If the foregoing construction be no
in accord with sound law, then 1t I.
quite impossible for the lay mind t.
comprehend the mysteries of the stat
utes.