Faust v. United States

Citations

• 163 U.S. 452
• 16 S. Ct. 1112
• 41 L. Ed. 224
• 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2281

Syllabus

<p>The defendant’s name need not be correctly spelled in an indictment, if substantially the same sound is preserved.</p> <p>On the trial under an indictment against an assistant postmaster for embezzling money-order funds of the United States, it being proved that he was the son and assistant of the principal postmaster, and as such had the sole management and possession of the money-order business and money-order funds during the entire term, a certified transcript from the office of the Auditor of the Treasury at Washington, showing the account of the postmaster, is admissible in evidence.</p> <p>It was no error on such trial to refuse to admit evidence tending to show that another person than the defendant, at a time anterior to the time of the commission of the offence charged, had committed another and different offence than the one herein charged, and that said other person had been indicted and convicted thereof.</p> <p>It was within the discretion of the court below to permit a witness who had been examined and cross-examined to be recalled in order to make some change in the statements made by him on cross-examination.</p> <p>The objection that the charge as a whole was misleading is without merit.</p> <p>The sixth assignment is based on the refusal of the court to charge the jury that the embezzlement must be proved to have taken place without the consent of the defendant’s principal or employer. It was claimed that as the indictment failed to charge that the defendant embezzled any money without the consent of his principal or employer, and as the postmaster employed the defendant, the defendant’s responsibility was to the postmaster, and not to the government. Held that it had no merit.</p> <p>The remaining assignments are without merit.</p>