Opinion ID: 94457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This point complains of the refusal to give the following instructions:

Text: 19. Evidence has been introduced upon the trial with reference to drafts drawn by the Indianapolis Cabinet Company on the Tufts Cabinet Company and accepted in the name of the latter company, and it is claimed on behalf of the government that there never was any such organization as said Tufts Cabinet Company, but that the same was wholly fictitious. This evidence has been permitted to be introduced before you for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent of the defendants and of Theodore P. Haughey in connection with the charge of wrongdoing by them in the various counts of the indictment. This evidence can only be considered by you for this purpose, as there is no charge in any count of the indictment based upon this particular transaction, and the light it may throw upon the intent of the defendants or either of them or of said Haughey must depend upon all the circumstances shown to have attended the transaction. 43. As you have been already told, the government in this case is prosecuting the defendants for particular transactions charged to have been unlawful and criminal, as specifically set forth in certain specific counts of the indictment. Evidence has been introduced by the government of other transactions between the Indianapolis Cabinet Company and the Indianapolis National Bank and various other parties. This evidence has been allowed to go before you solely upon the question of intent and should be considered by you only in so far as it may tend to illustrate the intent of Mr. Haughey or of the defendants. Except for that purpose you have nothing to do with other transactions than those specifically charged and prosecuted under this indictment. Except as illustrating such intent, the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of such other transactions is one with which you have nothing to do. We think the instructions here requested were properly refused because fully covered by the general charge of the court. Northern Pacific Railroad v. Urlin, 158 U.S. 271, 277; Grand Trunk Railway v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 433; Erie Railroad v. Winter, 143 U.S. 60, 74; Ayers v. Watson, 137 U.S. 584, 601, 603. Repeatedly in the instructions given, the jury were told that they could not find the defendants guilty, unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Haughey and the defendants had committed the specific criminal acts alleged in the counts of the indictment which were submitted to them with the intent therein charged. Thus the court, in the opening of its charge, said: You have nothing to do with the other counts of the indictment, which are withdrawn from your consideration. Again, in another portion of the charge: The particular acts of misapplication described in the several specific counts of the indictment on trial before you must be established by the proofs as therein respectively charged. And yet further: You are not authorized to find the defendants guilty of any other charge of aiding and abetting in the wilful misapplication of the moneys, funds and credits of said bank, except those specifically charged in the first twelve counts of the indictment now on trial before you, and also on the specific charges elected by the Government, as above stated, under the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth counts of the indictment. Having thus repeatedly called the attention of the jury to the fact that they were confined in the determination of the guilt of the accused to the specific matters submitted to them, the court, on the subject of intention, also correctly instructed them that for this purpose and for this purpose alone they might consider the proof introduced as to other misapplications than those charged in the counts which were before them. For instance, the court observed: In determining whether they had the criminal intent to deceive or defraud as charged, or whether they acted in good faith, you should take into consideration the situation of the parties, the course of business between them as well as between the cabinet company and the bank, and all the facts and circumstances in proof before you. We think there can be no doubt that the charge of the court as given, therefore, left no question in the minds of the jury that they could only find the defendants guilty upon the particular matters specified in the counts submitted to them, and that they could not find them guilty of a different misapplication from that charged, whether or not there was proof establishing such other misapplications. IV. The fourth point alleges, as error, the refusal of the court to give the following requested instruction: 15. The intent on the part of Mr. Haughey in the alleged misapplications of the moneys of the bank to injure or defraud the bank is an essential ingredient of the offence charged against the defendants. In determining the question, therefore, of Mr. Haughey's intent, you should take into consideration the relation he bore to this bank, both as an officer and shareholder, and whether the evidence shows any motive on his part for defrauding or injuring the bank, and it is for you to say, in the light of all the evidence, whether Mr. Haughey, in letting the cabinet company have such moneys, did so with such intent. If the evidence does not satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt of such intent, then the government's case is not made out. In determining this question you may consider whether Mr. Haughey was in any way benefited, or hoped to be benefited, by the loans or advances to the cabinet company; and, if you find from the evidence that there was no such benefit or hope thereof on the part of Mr. Haughey, such fact may be considered by you in determining whether there was any such intent as is charged, and, if the making of such loans and advances was under such circumstances shown by the evidence as would injure or tend to injure Mr. Haughey, that fact may be considered in like manner and for the same purpose. The complaint is made that nowhere in the charges given did the court expressly inform the jury that they might consider, in determining the question of criminal intent, whether the evidence disclosed that the motive of personal gain induced Haughey to commit the offence charged. But the instruction requested, in the particular mentioned, was not upon the law of the case, but upon the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury. The court did charge that the jury might look at all the proofs in the case in determining the question of guilty intent, and while it also instructed that it was not necessary for the commission of this offence that the officer of the bank who makes a wilful misapplication should derive any personal benefit or advantage from the transaction, the court added that: When the moneys, funds or credits of the bank are unlawfully taken from its possession and knowingly and wilfully misapplied, by converting them to the use of any person or company other than the bank, with the intention to injure and defraud, the offence described in the statute has been committed. So, also, the court elsewhere in its instructions to the jury said: If loans and discounts are made by the president of a national bank in bad faith for the fraudulent purpose of giving gain or advantage to some other person or company, and not in the honest exercise of official discretion, the officer making them passes the line dividing honesty and dishonesty, and his action is criminal if done with intent to injure and defraud the banking association, and it so results. The accused could not properly single out the absence of one of several possible motives for the commission of an offence, isolate it in an instruction from all the other facts of the case, and demand that the court instruct the jury as to the weight to be given this particular fact, independent of all the other proof in the case. The charge as a whole having correctly conveyed to the jury the rule by which they were to determine from all the evidence the question of intent, we think there was no error to the prejudice of the defendant in refusing the request which he asked. V. This point alleges error in the refusal of the court to give two instructions requested by plaintiff in error, one to the effect that the allowance of mere overdrafts was not of itself sufficient to show any criminal intent on the part of Haughey, and the other, that, notwithstanding that the statute forbids loans to any one person in excess of ten per cent of the capital stock, such loan, although unlawful, was not for that reason alone criminal. The first instruction referred to is, in substance, given in various parts of the charge of the court. Thus the court instructed the jury: On the counts for wilful misapplication the questions for you to determine are: Did Theodore P. Haughey, as president of the Indianapolis National Bank, knowingly and unlawfully and with intent to injure and defraud said bank in manner and in form as charged, wilfully misapply the moneys, funds or credits of said bank by cashing, discounting and paying for the use and benefit of the said Indianapolis Cabinet Company, knowing it to be insolvent, out of the moneys, funds and credits of the bank without authority from its board of directors, any notes, drafts or bills of exchange drawn by and upon insolvent persons, firms and companies, knowing them to be insolvent, and knowing such notes, drafts or bills of exchange to be valueless, in manner and form as charged in either count of the indictment? If he did, he has committed the offence of wilful misapplication as charged in the count or counts of the indictment now on trial relating to that subject which you find to have been so proved. The court also said: If Haughey and the defendants withdrew moneys from the bank for the use of the cabinet company by means of checks drawn by it on said bank when it had no funds or moneys on deposit against which to draw, if they acted in good faith, honestly believing that the cabinet company would be able to repay the same when required, they would not be guilty of the intent to defraud the bank as charged; but, on the other hand, if they acted in bad faith and did not believe and had no reasonable ground to believe that the cabinet company could repay such overdrafts when required to do so, then they had no lawful right to make such overdrafts or allow them to be made. We think the second requested instruction was also fully covered in the charge actually given.