The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-01-13
JONES CASE
WENT TOTHE
JURYATNOON


the opening remarks of the court.
Under the charge of misapplication
the Judge explained that under the
national banking law certain acts are
unlawful which are not criminal. Ma
tional banks are not allowed TO loan
money on real estate, but IL an official
did such q thing, 1t could only be con-
sidered wrong, not criminal.
Evidence which makes an act
criminal must show that the money
was converted to the use of some per-
son or institution outside of the bank.
In the case of the Ely note, where
the proceeds was applied to Ely and
in connection with the Mahon note.
where the proceeds went to Mahon."
Abstraction Charge.
The charge of abstraction was then
taken up and the law on the subject
read. This charge is not nearly so
technical as embezzle-nent. 1t is to
take or withdraw funds in control of
the bank. You can see that one can
not be guilty of embezzlement OF
funds entrusted are spent.
''Embezzlement must Of necessity
embrace misapplication and abstrac-
ton. If a person is guilty of embez-
element he is of necessity guilty of
misapplication. The converse of this
is not true however"
The charge of Issuing false certif-
Gates of deposit was then explained.
the law being read.
There is no doubt but that the de-
PENDANT had authority to issue certif-
Gates of deposit for the purpose of
raising funds. But that authority was
limited to raising funds for tn, bank
and not for himself
TT Is essential to each Of the
charges of embezzlement, misapplica-
ton, abstraction and the issuing of
false certificates and making false
entries, that tho acts were done with
the intent to injure the bank and the
stockholders. That is an indispensable
element to all the crimes"
A Fine Distinction.
In referring to false entry the court
made very fine distinction. In his
charge Judge Amidon held that false
entry consists of making a false entry
of true transaction, or of making a
true entry Of false transaction. If
the transaction is a sham and known
TO be cham, a true entr., of that
transaction en- come within the mean
ing of the statute.
THE books of bank are supposed
TO contain true record of the actual
transaction of that bank"
Reference was then made to counts
l, and in which embezzlement, mis-
application and abstraction Of $50, 900
Is charged.
TN order to establish the charge in
these counts, 1t is not necessary for
the government TO prove each actual
amount. Any part of that amount is
sufficient to establish the crime. The
time of the transactions is immateriaI.
All deals coming within the past three
years can be considered. The indict-
ment was returned Dec. Q which may
be regarded as the last date.
THE government contends that the
notes offered in evidence were worth
less and known to be worthless when
discounted by the bank and that It
was allowed for the purpose of giving
color to the right of the defendant to
credit himself with the amount.
THE defense claims that Jones dis
counted these notes for the purpose
OF honestly investing the funds of the
bank. If you find this to be a fact that
the transactions were made for the
benefit of the bank, then it is your duty
to find the defendant innocent.
1T Is shown that the defendant Sc
cured this paper, made payable to the
First National bank of Rugby. that it
was not taken in the first instance by |
the bank, that Jones took il to outside
banks and after placing the guarantee
OF the First National bank of Rugby. |
they were disposed OF.
The evidence shows that the banks
buying these notes believed they were
rediscounting them: that the drafts
were made payable to the First Nation |
al bank of Rugby. The defendant in |
order to get the proceeds placed the |
paper in the bank and credited the |
proceeds to his account.
The checks and drafts given i'm |
payment for these notes were the pro-
perty of the First National bank of |
Rugby because 1t was obligated on the
guarantee. Mr.. Jones had the right TO |
lend his own credit to the bank. he /
could also loan notes which belonged
20 himself, but Mr.. Jones could not
lawfully lend the credit Of the bank
for his own use, carrying the written
guarantee Of the bank. He held that |
credit as sacred trust for the stock |
holders and creditors. Therefore
when he discounted a note the pro-
ceeds belonged to the bank and he
should have dealt with it as such.
You should not loose your way in
bookkeeping and / charge you to use
II only to arrive at the ultimate facts.
II 1t confuses you, direct that Won
walk right back and get to the ulti-
mate transaction
Suppose that Jones had demanded
cash instead of drafts in payment for
these notes?
charge you as a matter of law
that the proceeds OF those notes
was the property of the bank. If
the cash had been useC by Jones
II would have been very pIain
1T matters not how many stems are
taken In the transaction It is the
ultimate result that you must look for
The defendant holds that the notes
were his own property and thai he
was liable for them. intending to sell
them and save the bank. If he did 81
believe the transaction Is robbed of
the intent which is necessary. In law
~ In life, actions speak louder than
words. Intent to do right, however.
does not make wrong act right nor
Justify II.
"Ev ry defaulter intends to
make good the amount Of the de-
! faulcation.
The law looks at the immediate
y y