The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-02-18
OPINION IN THE
R0CKAFELLOW CASE
II Was Written by Judge p. p. Smith OF
the Superior Court.
WAY THAT lie VIEWS THE LAW
He Can See No Reason Why n Banker
Should Frnuduicntiy Procure the
Moneys ofA, Is and g with impunity
Because He Also Succeeded in
Fra udulently Obtaining the Money
Therefor.


ro,,arsi,a tha i,,df,,oo,,t - tho T,1zorne
oorntv court in tbe csso of tho conn
n1onnealtb against psrlxer T. " RorI<-
ofello,v was ,nucb discussed In Iera1
ciroles IL, tbis citv ,,estardox, local
interest wos added to tba decision Inv
tho faot +bo+ Judyo II NI 1,dvoras Of
tbis citv was enecio,Iv nrasiding in In
uarne co,,ntv when tho Rocl,ofelloyy
o,sa ,,,oe called fo, t,i,i II VOC bafore
hin, tho ,notion was p,ade to bavn the
c,ea 7ier,ieeed q nlo, of for,,a,. copvic
tion bning entered NV Mr. Rockafellovv
In n,ssinr unon tho motion to ouasb
and the nlea Of "a,,trefoie convict,
Judgo Edwards wrote an exhaustive
oninion in which he laid down the doc
trina tbo+ lenlser Rocl.afellov could
not he indicted and convicted for each
time bn tools monev From, bis danositors
q fter he l,new that his hank was insol-
Won't such q CONSTRUCTION would mean
that the defendant would have to 90 to
nrison for far more than the neriod of
time allotted to any man on this earth
and such q construction he maintained
ran count 20 common sense and was
never contemplated by the men who
formed the law.
I'm, WAC >-r,1,, or-,,crro>,
IL NAo "a 4>i1N SCi1o iio4N'
The question raised in this case was
q new one and there was no precedent
to euide the iudpe in constituting the
- rho,,,' ,,,oro ,o,.a, ,,;,,,iIo, ;,, cow,
80 - 80, 80 1'',
ieSPe'to p'' MN. " ii'i,S "ii''io us 'iiu
Judge EdWards hau 10 new out MS own
| path to d conclusion ana IN doing TINS
| he seems To have seasoned his pOnStrllC-
| ton of the law with the salt of COM
| mon sense An appeal was taken from
| tba oninion of Indge Erduards to tha
,,,r,,,,,il a,,,t o,, 20 +,; ,,,,i,,, ~, +his
,I =. .o' I 'ls,','4 ..--, ~ ,,,,
| CITY III JANUARY alSuiheht was healu'
| District Attorney ID. "A. Fell, or Luzefne
county and Attorney Gustav Hahn, of
| Wilkes Barre, presented the argument
on the part of the appellant and Attor-
pe,, Tobn ~ Ienahan the Onnosing ar
a,,,,o,,+s
NJ I,,loo d c,,i+b oe +bis oit,,
was assigned the task of writing the
opinion in the case which was handed
down Tuesday in Williamsport. There
was no dissenting opinion filed showing
tbo+ tho harcb vas unani,nous in its
e,., -, ,,., ~ -, - c,,,;tt,
eoii'i.9ioii' ii' Ia" opi'iioi' "|'S ''iii''
says III part.
The defendant in the present case,
banker, carving on a private bank in the
citv of Willtes-Barre. was indicted Sept
: 1893 for having. on the 7th day of Feb
ruarv' 1S93 RECEIVED from Anna Maria
| Meier a depositor 500 with knowledge
"that he and the said bank were then
and there insolvent" On the trial Nov
! 10 1906 he pleaded autrefois convict. AS
to the facts on which this plea was based
IT was agreed by the district attorney and
the defendant that on the 2nd of June
1898, the defendant was indicted for hav-
ing, under the same circumstances and
with the same knowledge of insolvency as
in the present case, and little more
than an hour earlier on the same day, re-
ceived from Isaac Long, depositor,
81 500; that the defendant was tried on
said indictment and found guilty Nov. %,
1898; that Jan. ~, 1894, he was sentenced
to pay a fine of $3.50 and undergo an
Imprisonment in the state penitentiary
for the Eastern district for the period of
two years and two months; and that this
sentence has been complied with.
v,,,v amman 1u,s r,1yr~
"ai al i'-Ni' was
On demurrer by the district attorney,
the trial judge held that the plea was
sustained by these facts, ana entered
judgment Tor the uelehuaht' lhere upoll
an appeal was entered on the part Oh lho
commonwealth. Both indictments were
based on the act OF Sth OF May, 1889 (P. l..
li5), the provisions OF which are as ioi-
lows: THAT any banker broker or offi-
Ger of any trust or savings institution
national, state or private bank, VINO
shall take and receive money from a de-
positor with the knowledge that he, they
of the bank is at the time inso!Vent shal
be guilty of embezalement, and snail be
punished by fine in double the amount
so received, and imprisoned from one tc
| three years in the penitentialy.
?
I Rut whether considered as an act of EN-.
bazzlement from the legislative point OF
view or as a fraudulent appropriation OF
a depostors' money with criminal intent
from the judicial point of view, it is diff
2 cult to perceive how the taking of tht
money of A, at one time, can be regarded
S as an integral part OF the separate act o.
taking the money of b, in the absence
= of A, and at another time. 1t is not II
fact or in effect and there is no principle
of law to sustain such proposition. ina
the receipt of single deposit under thu
circumstances described in the statute
y constitutes complete offence, cannot b'
doubted. Notwithstanding certain feat
ures in common, there is no relation o.
, interdependence between such an act ant
) the receipt of different deposit, from
X different person, at a different time. Ont
( cannot be included in the other, merel!
by reason of the knoWledge OF lhsolNei
} cy common to both. Neither the lnsol
\ vency of the banker nor his knowledg
of it, Is criminal; they are but the coma!
ilo'H +. dooinred " crirnn Ae ioginoIi,, Sem
onstrated by Mr.. Justice Dean, the re
CENT of a deposit under the circumstanc
es described is through an implied falls
y representation. Yet It cannot be sal
\ that the obtaining of money from A b,
a,