Batchelor v. United States
The defendant, Harry F. Batchelor, was indicted, on section 5209 of the Revised Statutes, for willfully misapplying the moneys, funds, and credits of a national bank, of which he was the president and a director and agent, and was found guilty by the jury upon the second count, which was as follows:

'And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths and affirmations aforesaid, do further find and present that the said Harry F. Batchelor, on the 1st day of January, 1891, and at divers times and dates between January 1, 1891, and July 8, 1893, was then and there the president and a director and agent of a certain national banking association, to wit, the Stock Growers' National Bank of Miles City, theretofore duly organized and established and then existing and doing business in the city of Miles City, in the circuit and district aforesaid, under the laws of the United States of America, did then and there, at the time aforesaid, within the said district, as such president, director, and agent, by virtue of such employment and while so employed, willfully misapply forty thousand four hundred and twenty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents, of the moneys, funds, and credits then and there belonging to and the property of said association, in the manner following, to wit: That the said Harry F. Batchelor, without the knowledge or consent of the said association or the board of directors thereof, he then and there and at all times well knowing both himself and the said John W. Batchelor, hereinafter named, to be insolvent and worthless, did then and there procure of the said John W. Batchelor divers promissory notes payable to said association, some of which were indorsed by him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, but all without other or further security; with which said notes, by and through the device and pretense of discounting the same and making loans thereon and with the proceeds of said loans so made thereon and thereby obtained by him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, he then and there knowing the said promissory notes to be inadequate security for the moneys so obtained, he did from time to time, during the period aforesaid, take up and satisfy the individual indebtedness of him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, to the said association; and thereafter in turn, by substituting the notes of him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, to said association, sometimes indorsed by John W. Batchelor or by one William Harmon or by one George Newman or by one C. L. Merrill, he, the said Harry F. Batchelor, then and there well knowing the said notes to be inadequate security for the sums they represented, and the said notes never having with them any other security, he did then and there take up and cancel and pretend to pay to the said association the indebtedness so created to said association by John W. Batchelor as aforesaid; and did from time to time, by the fraudulent device and means aforesaid, as well as by passing differences between the face of said various notes and the indebtedness aforesaid, which they were from time to time to satisfy, to the credit of him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, upon the accounts of said association, gradually increase the amount of the actual indebtedness of him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, to the said associatior; all of which said sums were misapplied willfully, and in the manner aforesaid, out of the moneys, funds, and credits of said association, and converted then and there to the use, benefit, and advantage of said Harry F. Batchelor, with the intention then and there had and having in him, the said Harry F. Batchelor, to injure and defraud the said association, its depositors, and other persons, corporations, and firms, then doing or who might thereafter do business with the said association; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.'

The defendant moved in arrest of judgment because this count did not 'state a public offense against the laws of the United States.' The court overruled the motion, and the defendant alleged exceptions, and sued out this writ of error.

W. E. Cullen, J. K. Toole, and John T. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Conrad, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision