PRATHER 11. KEAN.
reported speculations of Some of the employes on. the board of trade, suggesting inquiry upon the subject, and directing that a careful examination be made of their securities oiaU kinds. On receipt oHbis letter, Kean told Ker what he had heard, and asked if he had not been speculating again on the board of trade? Ker said he had made some deals for friends in Canada for which he had received a brokerage, and that the transactions were all ended. The defendants then seemed to entertain suspicion of Ker's. integrity, and an examination of their books lind securities was commenced. No effort was made, however, to see whether the special deposits had been disturbed. Kean testified that the special deposits, including the plaintiffs' bonds, were not examined, because no record was kept of them, by numbers or otherwise; although the proof shows that the numbers of the plaintiffs' bonds did appear upon the defendants' bond register at the, time of the purchase. If the, bonds were held as collateral security at the time they were stolen, the defendants were ,obliged, as bailees for reward, to exercise that degree of care in their safe-.keeping which a reasonably prudent and cautious man would exercise in the care of his own property of the same kind. It does not follow that they are. not liable if they were as diligent in caring for these bonds as. they were in caring for securities of their own,for theyAnay have been careless of the latter. If, however, the, custodY' of ,the defendants at the time the bonds were stolen was only that of gratuitous bailees, Cor safe-keeping, they are not liable for the loss unless it resulted from their gross carelessness. National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699. When the first loan for which the bonds were pledged as security was paid, and the defendants inquired what should be done with thecollaterals, they were directed by the plaintiffs to hold them as formerly, for the plaintiffs' use, and forward a list of them by numbers. The direction was not that the bonds be held as a special deposit, or for safe-keeping. Evidently the defendants were informed that the plaintiffs expected to use the bonds as they had already been used, namely, as collaterals; and in informing the plaintiffs that the bonds. were held as a special deposit, subject, to their further orders, the defendants doubtless intended 1:0 be underlltood as willing to hold the bonds as collateral security for future loans. The two banks had been in uninterrupted business relations for a number of years, during the greater portion of which time there was a balance, varying in amount, with the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendantsde.emed this and valu,able. They cut off the coupons as they matured, and placed the amount, to the plaintiffs' credit. While, therefore, the bailment was for the conveni.ence of the plaintiffs, it came about in the course of business between the two banks, and it was for their m\ltual benefit. If it be conceded, however, that the bonds ceased to be held as coUat,erals when the $12,000 note was paid, and they thereupon became a mere special deposit, the character of the bailment was changed by the .subsequent agreement whereby they remained in the custody of the defendants as a continuing security for advances made and to be made to
The defendants were distinctly informed that in order to accommodate,on shortnotice;such ofthe plaintiff's customers as were ingin' cattle and hogs, they might, from time to time, desire to overdraw theiraccoun:t on the secu'rity of these bonds as collaterals; and,in order that they might be held for such emergenCies, the detimdants discounted paper executed by the plaintiffs on the pledge of notes of the latter's tomers. The evidence shows that this agreement continued in force until Ker' fled; and that after it was made the plaintiffs did make overdrafts on the defendants, all of which were paid, some of them only a' few months before Ker's dishonesty was discovered. If these overdrafts were not paid on the security of the bonds, they were paid without se-curity, which is not to be presumed, in the absence of proof. The fendants made frequent examinations to see that their own cash and securities were correct" but, according to their own testimony, neglected any examination with a view of ascertaining whether or not the plaintiffs' bonds had been disturbed. rfhe right of the defendants to hold the bonds against the plaintift's and all others, as collateral security for any balanoe due to them from the plaintiffs, is too plain for dispute; and it follows that, having this right, their responsibility was that of pledgees. It is immaterial, however, whether the defendants were bailees with or without reward, as in either case they are liable for the value of the bonds, the loss having resulted from their gross The defendants knewtliat Ker had been engaged in business which was hazardous, and thathis\meanll were scant. The demoralizing effect of speculating in stocks .and grain-more properly speaking, gambling on the rise and fall of the price of stocks and grain-is seen in the numerous peculations, embezzlements, forgeries, and thefts plainly traceable to that cause. Ker had free access to valuable securities, which were transferable by delivery;'easily abstracted and converted; and yet he was allowed' to'retain his position without any effort to see that he had not converted to his own use the property of others, or that his statements were recto A prompt examination, after his first admission that he had been' speculating,would have doubtless shown that even then some of the plaintiffs' bonds had been exohanged for others, if, indeed, theyhad not been stolen. 'Ker's position was one of trust and greatimportance. His own admi8sion fihowed that he was not trustworthy for such employ:. ment, and it was groBs negligence in the defendants not to discharge him, or place him in some position of less responsibility. Scott v. NatianaZ Bank, 72 Pa. St. 471j Third Nat; 'Bank v. Boyd, 44 Md. 47j Cuttingv. Marlar, 78 N. Y. 454.
UNIl'ED Sl'ATES 11. JACKSON.
(lHreuit Court, 8. D. ,Georgia, W; D. October
CRtMINAL LAW-WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-REASONABLE DOUBT.
In criminal trials simply, a preponderance of testimony is insufficient.· ·A de&,ree of mental convictlOn than in civil caSeS is held to be necessary. and the eVIdence must produce such an effect on tb.emind of the individua.l juror that, after its consideration, he can, in view of his oath, have no reason· able,doubt of the guilt of the party accused, before 'II. conviction is justified. 1
01' ACCUSE])-AsBUMED NAME.
The flight of the accused under an assumed name. coincident with the theft of letters traced to his possessit\)n unexplained, tends strongly to shOW guilt.
POST-OFFICE-RoBBING THE MAU,s-REGISTERED LETTER STOLEN-INDICT:MENTO-ALLBGATION OF OWNERSHIP.. ,
Whim the indictment alleges ownership in the person to whom a registered letter was directed, and it appears in proof that when it was stolen the sender had'depositedit with the postmaster, taking his receipt therefor, and it had. by due course of mail, left, the mailing office, held, that its custody by the post· office Ifepartment was for the benefit of the person t() whom it was addressed; property, thssender had no control over it, and there was no VarIance., , In a criminal tri1101the good character of the accused is generally a faet fit, likeall'otMrfaets proved in the cause, to be weighed and estimated by the jury, f9rit may render. that d()ubtfulwhich otherwise would be clear.
CHARACTER·. " .
If the guilt of the accused is plainly proven to 'the satisfaction of the jury. notwithstanding proof of good character is made,and has been given its due weight. it would be the.ir duty to convict, irrespective of such proof of character; but. where the evidence is doubtful and conflicting. the Importance of thacharacter of the accused Is'increased.· . (Syllabw by tM CQUrt.)
Indictment under section 5467 of the Revised Statutes of the United ' States, for robbing the mails. Du. PonHluerry" U. S. Atty., for the United States. Hawkins cf; Hawkins. C. G. Simmons, and L. J. Blalock, for defendant. SPEE,R, J., (charging jury.) Will R.. Jackson is on trial charged with the offense of robbing the mails. The statute he is alleged to have violated defines the offense. In: this trial, as in all criminal prosecutions, the burden and duty is on the government to prOd\lCe such evidence of the truthfulness of the accusation as will satisfy the jury that the defendant is guilty.
!That theguilt of a prisoner must be· established beyond. a reasonable doubt, and what is reaSoI1able doubt, s¥ .state v. Elsham, (Iowa,) 31 N. W. Rep. 66; Heldt v.State, (Neb.) 30 N. W. Rep. 626; People v. SteubenvoU. (Mich.) 28 N. W. Rep. 890, and note;' St$te v. Thurman, (Iowa,) 24 N. W. Rep. 511, and. note j State v, Meyer. (Vt.) 3 Atl.)lep. 201, and note; U. S..v. Searcey, 26 Fed. Rep. 442, and note; Brown v. State, (Ind.) 15 N. E.Rep.905, and note; Stitz v. State, and note; Com. v. Leona.rd,(Ma!l8.) 4 N, E. Rep. 96, and note; leople v. GWdiCl, (N. Y.) 3 N. E. Rep. 496; State v. Jones, (Nev.) 11 Pac. Rep. 318, and note; Clair v. People, (Colo.) 10 Pac. Rep. 799. and nQte; Minich v. People, (Colo.) 9 Pac. Rep. 4, and note; Leonard v. Territory, (Wash. T.) 7 Pac. Rep. 87:1, and note; State v. (Mo.) 2 B. W. ,Rep. 394.