Evans v. United StatesAnnotate this Case
153 U.S. 608 (1894)
U.S. Supreme Court
Evans v. United States , 153 U.S. 608 (1894)
Evans v. United States (No. 2)
Submitted April 17-18, 1894
Decided May 14, 1894
153 U.S. 608
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Evans v. United States, No. 922, ante,153 U. S. 584, followed.
This case was argued with No. 922, ante,153 U. S. 584. It was also an indictment against Evans for a willful misapplication of the funds of the Spring Garden National Bank. The indictment originally contained 152 counts, upon all of which except 57 a nolle pros. was entered. The same proceedings were had as in the former case. The defendant was convicted upon all the counts and sentenced to imprisonment for two years at and from the expiration of such imprisonment as he might undergo by reason of the sentence in the prior case. He subsequently sued out this writ of error. A reargument was ordered upon the fifth to the eleventh counts inclusive, and upon the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and twentieth counts.
MR JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.
As the verdict of guilty was rendered upon all the counts, and the sentence did not exceed that which might properly have been imposed upon conviction under any single count, such sentence is good if any such count is found to be sufficient. As the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth counts of this indictment are the same as the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the other indictment, which were held to be good, except that the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting the President, instead of the cashier, in the fraudulent misapplication of the Nettleton notes, and the twentieth bears the same resemblance to the fourteenth of the other, it follows that these counts are also good, and the judgment of the court below is therefore
MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissented for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Evans v. United States, ante,153 U. S. 584.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.