Washburn & Moen Manfg. Co. vs. Haish. confined to the special mode of constructing and attaching the barbs; and if a person who has invented and describes a particular form of barb, and a particular mode of attaching it to the wire, is entitled to a patent, we do not know why Glidden cannot be to this form of barb and mode of attachment, for the same reason that Kelly and Hunt were entitled to a patent. We cannot overlook what has been done, nor the immense number of patents that have been granted for peculiar modes of constructing barbs and attaching them to wire fences, and considering the success which has followed this barb of Glidden's—although it may be, as was stated in the former opinion, near the border line between mechanical skill and invention-yet we feel inclined to sustain it. We have carefully examined the case cited, and decided at the present term by the Supreme Court of the United States -Manufacturing Company vs. Ladd.' The principle frequently decided by that court, that the re-issue must be for the same invention as that shown in the original, is emphasized with special force in that case; but we do not find that it lays down any new rule, and especially when comparing it with one decided at the same term-Ball vs. Langles, 102 United States, 128. In relation to the power of the Commissioner of Patents to determine whether there has been an accident, mistake, or inadvertence in the original patent, we are not disposed to change the rulings we have made upon the various claims and re-issues in this case. We hold, therefore, as we construe the originals and reissues, there is nothing contained in the claims of the re-issues which is not set forth in the specifications or drawings of the original patents. So far as there may be anything in the original opinion which may be construed to mean or imply that Hunt patented and had a valid claim to any and every form of barb upon a fence wire, this opinion is intended as a modification of the same. Motion for a re-hearing denied. 1102 United States, 408. United States vs. Allen. UNITED STATES vs. BENJ. F. ALLEN. DISTRICT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISDECEMBER, 1880. 1. NATIONAL BANKS-FALSE ENTRIES.-The word "false," as used in Section 5209, United States Revised Statutes, which provides that any officer of a National Bank making a false entry in any report, etc., means willfully and intentionally false, and with intent to deceive, a mistake in the amount of an item, would not make a man guilty under the law. 2. REPORTS RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICER MAKING.-Officers of National Banks who assume to make reports called for under the law must be held responsible civilly and criminally for the statements made in these reports. The officer cannot be heard to say that he did not know what was in the reports made and sworn to by him in the exercise of his duty under the law. 3. EXPERT TESTIMONY.-The testimony of an accountant who has examined the books of a bank is competent evidence as to the facts thus ascertained by him. 4. GOOD REPUTATION,-If the evidence leaves the question of criminal intent in doubt, proof of good reputation may solve that doubt in favor of the defendant. Joseph B. Leake, United States District Attorney, for United States. C. C. Cole and L. H. Bisbee, for defendant. BLODGETT, J., charging the jury said: The first two counts of this indictment charge that one Arnold M. Cleveland, who was a clerk in the Cook County National Bank, of this city, on the first day of May, and the twenty-sixth day of June, 1874, made certain false entries in regard to the financial condition of said bank in reports called for on said days by the Comptroller of the Currency,and that the defendant aided and abetted said Cleveland in making said false entries or statements. The third count United States vs. Allen. charges that defendant was the president of said bank on the second day of October, 1874, and that as such president he made certain false entries in regard to the condition of the bank in a report as to the condition of the bank on said day, called for by the Comptroller of the Currency; and the fourth count charges similar false statements or entries to have been made by defendant, as president of the bank, in a report of the condition of the bank, made to said Comptroller on the 31st day of December, 1874; all which said false entries were made with intent to injure and defraud the said banking association and the stockholders thereof, and to deceive the directors of said bank. It is admitted that the Cook County National Bank was organized under the National Banking Law in the early part of 1872, and that in the spring of 1873, defendant became the owner of a majority of its stock, and became its president, and the active manager of its affairs, and that he continued as such president and manager until the failure of the bank on the 19th day of January, 1875. The indictment is framed under section 5209, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which reads as follows: "Every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk or agent of any association, who makes any false entry in any book, report or statement of the association, with intent in either case to injure or defraud the association, or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of the association; and any person who with like intent aids or abets any officer, clerk or agent in any violation of this section, shall be deemed guilty," etc. You will have noticed from the statute as I have read it to you, that the false entries named must have been made with intent to injure or defraud the bank or its stockholders or any company or individual person, so that an intent to injure the bank, its stockholders, or some other person United States vs. Allen. is the offense under the law. The law authorizes the Comptroller of the Currency to call not less than five times a year for a full report of the liabilities and assets of the bank on the close of business on any day named, and any false statement or entry in any such report made by an officer of the bank with intent to defraud, or to deceive the officers of the bank, or the Comptroller, is an offense under the law I have read to you. The entries in these reports, which it is claimed were false, relate mainly to the amount of bills and notes discounted held by the bank at the times covered by the reports, and to the amount of cash on hand at those several times. The cash is divided in the report into several separate itemssuch as: Amount of National Bank notes on hand. Amount of treasury notes on hand. Amount of gold and silver coin. Amount of fractional currency. Amount of funds in hands of reserve agents, etc., etc. The first question to be considered is, Were the entries complained of in these various reports, or any of them, false; and were they made by defendant? Secondly, Were said false entries made by defendant or did he aid and abet in their being made by Cleveland, with intent to injure and defraud the bank or its stockholders or to deceive its directors? In regard to the first subject of inquiry, were the entries in the reports, or any of them, false, and were they made by defendant? The word "false" as used in this law, means willfully and intentionally false; a mistake in the amount of an item, growing out of accounts in book-keeping, would not make a man guilty under the law. The law intends to punish an intentional mis-statement in regard to the affairs of the bank. These reports must show the condition of the bank truthfully. The reports need not agree with the books, either in the statement of assets or the names by which they are called. United States vs. Allen. They may, for instance, call overdrafts loans, if they are in fact loans arranged for and understood as such. What I mean is, that differences between aggregate items in the report and the books may be explained-for you all understand that a bank could hardly be managed successfully unless its books in some form contained a full history of its business transactions. The Comptroller of the Currency prescribes the form of the report, and the kind of information it must contain, and if the books are not so kept as to show these items in this form, then the statement or report must conform to the truth of the affairs as they actually exist, giving the items of information called for by the Comptroller truthfully. The law, and the form of report prescribed, recognizes that in these banks there will be quite an amount which may be carried as cash, and known as "cash items" which will not be in fact cash. In some banks, as appears from the proof, "call loans" are carried as cash-the checks or memoranda evidencing such transactions are counted as cash merely because they represent cash, and are only intended to serve a temporary purpose. And so a bank officer, in making his report to the Comptroller, may distribute his overdraft account, and put such as actually represent loans to the class of loans and discounts. The report alone may not show whether the bank is solvent or not. The bank may, in good faith, have discounted paper and made loans, which by changes in business affairs, have become either worthless or greatly depreciated; and the paper representing such loans or discounts will represent so much money actually due the bank, yet it will not be available. In order, therefore, to determine whether the assets reported as held by the bank are actually good, a bank examiner is appointed, who, by actual inspection from time to time of these assets, and from such information as he can obtain in regard to the solvency of the makers of the paper on hand, decides whether the bank is in a sound condition or not. The law requires a bank to charge off as "bad" all debts on |