◆ SpookStack

2 Untied States va. Darby. as cO-maker or endorser, and did this in the course of his employ- ment as assistant cashier. The odd numbered counta charge an intent to injure and defraud the bank, and the even numbered counts an intent to deceive the officers of the bank and the Comp- troller of the Currency. A demurrer to the indictment was sus- tained by the District Court on the ground that the discount of thot 31h the paper had been recorded as it occurred, and hence that the entries were not false within the meaniug of the statute. The case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act (Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246; 18 U. 8. Code, sec. 682; cf. Judicial Code, sec. 238; 28 U. 8S. Code, see. 345) upon an appeal by the Government. ‘‘The erime of making false entries by an officer of a national bank with the intent to defraud . . . ineludes any entry on the books of the bank which is intentionally made to represent what is not true or does not exist, with the intent either to deceive its officers or to defraud the association.”? Agnew v. United States, 165 U. 8S, 36, 52. The act charged to the appellee is criminal if subjected to that test. At the time of the entry, no note was in existence with the signature of Bessie D. Darby as co-maker or en- dorser. No note with such a signature had been discounted by the bank. The forged signature was @ nullity, as much so as if the name had been blotted out before the discount, or never placed upon the notes at all. Verity was not imparted to the entry by the simulacrum of a signature knovn to he spurious. Agnew ¥. United States, supra; Coffin v. United States, 162 U. S. 664, 683; United States v. Morse, 161 Fed. 429, 486; Morse v. United States, 174 Fed. 539, 552; United States v. Warn, 295 Fed. 328, 330; Bill- ingsley v. United States, 178 Fed. 658, 659, 662; Peters v. United States, 94 Ped, 127, 144. As well might it be said that dollars known to be counterfeit might have been entered in the books as cash. To read the statute otherwise is to be forgetful of its aim. Its aim was to give assurance that upon an inspection of a bank, pnuh- 25 LU me errase es Lek fae Sees he Pune . lie offieers and others would discover i in its books of account a pie- ‘ture of its true condition. [nited States v. Corbett, 215 DU. 8, 233, 241, 242; Billingsley v. United States, supra. One will not find the pieture here. Upon the face of the books there was a state- ment to examiners that paper with two signatures had been dis- se ee ree mR I ns te ee mt ee wee