People v. Martel
Before: Hall
Synopsis
Criminal Law—False Report by Bank—Evidence.—In a prosecution of a bank president for rendering a false report as to the amount of the paid-up capital, entries in the books of the bank, made at a time when he had no connection with it, are hearsay and not admissible against him, and therefore they cannot be used as a basis for the testimony of an expert accountant.
Id.—-Testimony as to Intent or Belief.—In a prosecution of a bank president for making a false report to the bank commissioners, his own testimony that he believed the report to be true, or that he had no intent to deceive the commissioners, is admissible.
Id.—Testimony Showing Absence of Intent to Deceive.—In a prosecution of a bank president for making a false report to the bank commissioners, where a specific intent to deceive is an essential ingredient of the offense, the defendant should be allowed to prove any fact tending to show that he had no such intent, or that he did not knowingly make a false statement.
Id.—Instruction Covered by Others.—Requested instructions are properly refused if they are substantially given in other instructions.
[574]
HALL, J.
Defendant was charged under section 558 of the Penal Code with knowingly and with intent to deceive, exhibiting to the bank commissioners a false report of the Market Street Bank, as president thereof, wherein it was stated that the capital of said bank theretofore paid in coin amounted to the sum of $102,245, whereas, as it was alleged, the amount of the capital of said bank theretofore paid did not amount to any greater sum than fifty thousand dollars,
Upon trial defendant was convicted!, and upon judgment being rendered duly appealed to this court from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.
The indictment is the one that was passed upon by this court in
People
v.
Nash,
15 Cal. App. 320, [114 Pac. 784],
It was not alleged in the indictment nor claimed at the trial that the report, which was made by defendant and Nash to the bank commissioners, was false in any respect other than as to the statement of the amount of the capital paid in coin. It was not alleged, nor claimed at the trial, that the report did not correctly set forth the then assets and liabilities of the bank. The record shows that included in the whole amount of capital stock issued at the date of the report was one lot issued March 23, 1903, amounting to fifty thousand dollars, and another lot .issued November 18, 3.905, amounting to thirty-five thousand dollars. It was these two issues that the people claimed were not fully paid for either in coin or in money. In order to make up capital paid for in coin or money to the amount of $102,245 it was necessary to include these two issues of fifty thousand dollars and thirty-five thousand dollars respectively. The report which was filed with the bank commissioners August 26, 1906, signed and verified by defendant as president, and by Nash as secretary of said bank, purported to give a report and statement of the condition of the bank as of August 15, 1906, and among other things stated that the amount of capital theretofore paid jn coin amounted to $102,245.
The people called the bookkeeper of the bank and by him identified a large number of books as the books of the bank kept in the regular course of business.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)