Spurr v. United States

Citations

• 174 U.S. 728
• 19 S. Ct. 812
• 43 L. Ed. 1150
• 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1532

Syllabus

<p>Spurr was tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee on three indictments, consolidated together, each of which charged him with having wilfully violated the provisions of Rev. Stat. § • 5208, by wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly certifying certain cheques drawn on said bank by Dobbins and Dazey, well knowing that Dobbins and Dazey did not have on deposit With the bank at the times when the cheques were certified, respectively, an amount of money equal to the respective amounts specified therein. It was not denied that the defendant certified the cheques, and that the account of Dobbins and Dazey was overdrawn when the certifications took place. The questions for determination were defendant’s knowledge of the state of Dobbins and Dazey’s account when the cheques were certified and his intent in the certifications. After the case had been committed to the jury, and they had had it under consideration for some hours, they re- ■ turned to the court room, and asked the following question, which was written out: “We want the law as to the certification of cheques, when no money appeared to the credit of the drawer.” The court read to the jury the first half of Rev. Stat. § 5208, as follows : “It shall be unlawful for any officer, clerk or agent of any national banking association to certify any cheque drawn upon the association unless the person or company drawing the cheque has on deposit with the association, at the time such cheque is certified, an amount of money equal to the amount specified in such cheque.” The court then inquired: “Does this answer ■your question? ” To which the foreman replied: “ Tes, sir.” The court again read that part of the section, and made certain observations; among others that a false certification was “ the certifying by an officer of the bank that a cheque is good when there are no funds to meet it.” As the jury were retiring, counsel for defendant said to the court that he thought what the