Court Opinion

ID: 9307041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:17:53.5287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:57.636285
License: Public Domain

BUTLER, District Judge.
Under the court’s construction of the contract the question arose, what embezzlements, if any, occurred within 12 months of the time at which such embezzlements might have been discovered, (during Baker’s last year in the bank), but for his misconduct in altering books or falsifying balance sheets? This question was submitted to the jury. The court was not asked to withhold it—on the ground that there was no testimony to justify its submission. It could not however have been withheld if a request to do so had been made, because there was evidence on which something might be found within the period. The defendant admits that a finding of $1,000; would be justifiable. - Complaint is made, however, that upwards of $2,000, additional, was found. In submitting the question the jury was reminded that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the amount taken during this time, and that no more could be found than is distinctly proved. The court was misled, by a paper handed up, respecting the period (embraced in the 12 months alluded to) within which the amount claimed was supposed to have been taken; and consequently the jury was instructed that it covered the whole of January, 1892—thus including 10 days back of the 12 months stated. This was an error however against the plaintiff.
A careful examination of the evidence has not satisfied me that the jury found a larger amount of embezzlement during the period in *877question, than is justifiable. I think it might have found from the evidence that Baker's misconduct about January, 1893, prevented the plaintiff discovering at that time, the amount with which the plaintiff is charged, as having taken during the period referred to. It is not a question whether the court would so find, but whether the jury might.
The rule is dismissed.