Case: EVANS v. UNITED STATES (No. 2)
Abbreviation: Evans v. United States
Decision Date: 1894-05-14
Docket Number: No. 923
Citation: 153 U.S. 608
Volume: 153
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: EVANS v. UNITED STATES (No. 2).
Judges: 
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
EVANS v. UNITED STATES (No. 2).
EREOS TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 923.
Submitted April 17,18,1894.
Decided May 14, 1894.
Evans v. United States, No. 922, ante, 584, followed.
This oase was argued with No. 922, ante, 581. It was also an indictment against Evans for a wilful misapplication of the funds of the Spring Garden National Bank. The indictment originally contained 152 counts, upon all of which except 57 a nolle pros, was entered. The same proceedings were had as in the former case. The defendant was convicted upon all the counts, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years at and from the expiration of such imprisonment as he might undergo by reason of the sentence in the prior case. He subsequently sued out this writ of error. A reargument was ordered upon the fifth to the eleventh counts inclusive, and upon the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and twentieth counts.
Mr. Hampton L. Carson, (with whom were Mr. J. Levering Jones and Mr. Rufus E. Shapley on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant A ttorney General Conrad for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brown
delivered the opinion of the court.
As the verdict of guilty was rendered upon all the counts, and the sentence did not exceed that which might properly have been imposed upon conviction under any single count, such sentence is good if any such count is found to be sufficient! As the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth counts of this indictment are the same as the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the other indictment, which were held to be good, except that the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting the president instead of the cashier in the fraudulent misapplication of the Nettleton notes, and the twentieth bears the same resemblance to the fourteenth of the other, it follows that these counts are also good, and the judgment of the court below is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Mb. Justice Field dissented for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Evans v. United States, ante, 584.