People v. Severance — 10 N.Y. Crim. 355

Majority

p. 355

Supreme Court-General Term-Fourth Department.

February 23, 1893.

PEOPLE v. FRANKLIN M. SEVERANCE.

(51 St. Rep. 399; 67 Hun, 182.)

Headnote

1. Evidence—False entries by officer of corporation’.

On the trial of an indictment for-making false entries in a corporate book of accounts, a statement of balances, not made by the defendant or under his direction, is inadmissible, though sent by him to the witness who produces it.

p. 356

2. Same—Handwriting.

Chapter 36 of 1880 does not allow a witness to testify to handwriting, where he has no knowledge of its genuineness except from having seen a signature proved to be genuine.

3. Witness--—Cross-examination.

Where a witness is called by the people, examined and cross-examined, and as he leaves the stand, defendant’s counsel states to the district attorney, in the presence of the court, that he desires to further cross-examine the witness, and desires him to remain in attendance for that purpose, and so informs the witness, who leaves the city, the court should permit the defendant to secure the witness and delay the trial a reasonable time for him to do so.

'¡Appeal from a judgment -of the court of sessions of Onondaga ití&unty, upon the conviction of the defendant by a jury of the crime of making a false entry in a book of accounts kept by a ¡corporation while an -officer thereof, under -section 602 of the Penal Code, and from an o-rder denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury in the Onondaga oyer and terminer on the 21-st day of January, 1891. He was arraigned April 6, 1891, in the court of sessions of that county, to which the indictment had been remitted for trial, and pleaded “Not guilty.” The indictment charged the defendant with the crime of making a false entry in a book of accounts kept by a corporation, while being an officer of such corporation, with an intent to defraud. It was alleged in the indictment that the defendant on March 28,1887, at Fayetteville, while cashier of the Farmers’ Bank of Fayetteville, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the sítate of New York, with intent to defraud said bank and divers other persons, made -and concurred in making a false entry in a “tickler,” a book of accounts kept by said bank, and the page containing such false entry was set forth at large in the indictment. The false entry charged was that of entering thie figure nine in the thousands column -on one of the pages of the “tickler.”

The Farmers’ Bank of Fayetteville was organized under the banking laws -of this state in March, 1870. Its capital stock was $100,000. In December, 1877, by proper proceedings, it was re-.

p. 357

duced to $50,000. In June, 1886, by further proceedings, the stock was further reduced to the sum of $25,000. During a period of about sixteen years the bank had transacted a banking business at the village of Fayetteville, but in the following year, after an examination of the affairs of the bank by Oscar F. Richardson, the bank examiner designated for that purpose by the banking department, the bank was dissolved and its affairs wound up in an action brought by the attorney general for that purpose. The bank was closed on the 30th of May, 1887, and ¡William S. Andrews, of Syracuse, N. Y., was appointed receiver.

The indictment in this action was not found until about three years and one-half afterwards, and after the affairs of the bank had been closed.

A large amount of evidence was taken on the trial, both documentary and oral, to which there was a great number of exceptions. The trial resulted in a verdict of “guilty,” and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at Auburn for the period of three years.

Celyon H. Lewis, for appellant.

Lawrence T. Jones, for respondents.

The principal questions presented on this appeal relate to the rulings of the trial court in the admission and -rejection of evidence. There was a great number of exceptions taken by the def endant. Many of them are not, however, referred to by the appellant in his brief. There are others to which our attention is -called that we do not deem of sufficient importance to require any special consideration further than to say, that they have been carefully examined, and we do not think they require a reversal of the judgment. After eliminating the two classes of exceptions alluded to, others remain which seem to be valid, and to require careful consideration.

On the trial the People were permitted to introduce in evidence a paper, which purported to be a verified statement of balances on deposit ledger “C,” on the mornings of May 17 and 19, 1887, which should have been included in the statement of balances taken from deposit ledger “B,” by the inspector. The admission of the paper in evidence was objected to by the de

p. 358

fendanft on tihe ground that it had not been proved. This objection was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. The appeal book, which purports to contain all the evidence given on the trial, fails to show that this paper was proved in any manner whatever. We cannot conceive of any principle of the law of evidence that would justify its admission against the defendant, with no proof, whatever, that it was made by Mm or under Ms direction. Although it was claimed by the People that it was made by the defendant, and sent to the witness by •him, there was no proof of those facts. We think this paper was ¡clearly inadmissible.

We are also of the opinion that it cannot be held that this error was nolt prejudicial to the defendant, and should, therefore, be disregarded. The effect of tihe evidence was to show large overdrafts by the defendant and others, and thus prejudice the jury against the defendant. Moreover, it was made the basis of evidence which tended to show that the books of the bank were improperly kept, or if they were properly kept, that tihe list introduced were falsely made and verified by the defendant.

The People also called as a witness one Lawrence W. Myers, who claimed to be an expert, both in bookkeeping" and as to hand-writing. He testified at great length, not only as to the propriety of tihe manner in which the books of the bank were kept, but was permitted to testify unqualifiedly tihlat a great many papers 'and entries in the books were in the handwriting of the defendant, although it was shown by the undisputed evidence that he had never seen the defendant write, and there was in evidence but a single signature that was proved to be that of the defendant.

On the occasions referred to, of which there was a great number, he was, in substance, asked: “Is the writing I show you in defendant’s hand-writing?” These questions were objected to by tihe defendant, on the ground, among others, that the witness was not qualified to testify on that subject. These objections were overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. The writings were then offered in evidence, without any other proof as to tiheir ¡having been made by the defendant, to which he duly objected, and they were admitted by the trial court under his

p. 359

objection and exception. The propriety of admitting such proof of the defendant’s hand-writing, and then admitting in evidence the writing with no other proof of its genuineness, is sharply presented by the various objections and exceptions made and taken by him. Indeed, a large portion of the written evidence received against the defendant was verified in this manner only. The People attempted to justify these rulings under the provisions of the statute which provides that comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses in all trials and proceedings, and such writings and the evidence of the witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of 'the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute. Laws 1889, chap. 36, § 1.

It may be observed that this statute only permits a comparison to be made by a witness of a disputed writing with any writing proved to be genuine, and the submission of such writings and the evidence of such witnesses to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness, or otherwise, of the writing in dispute. Although this statute permits a comparison of a genuine hand-writing of a person with that of a disputed instrument, we find in it no authority which would justify a court in permitting a witness to testify to the hand-writing of a person when he bad no knowledge of its genuineness, except having ■seen a signature that was proved to be genuine. In this case the witness had never seen the def endant write, nor was there any claim that he had ever received documents purporting to be written by defendant, in answer to documents written by the witness or under his authority, or that in the ordinary course of business documents purporting to be written by the defendant ■had been habitually submitted to the witness.

As this witness was not qualified to give evidence as to the handwriting of the defendant, except as he compared the writings in dispute with the one proved to be genuine, be should not, we think, have been permitted to testify positively that these different entries and papers were in defendant’s handwriting. His evidence should have been confined to a comparison of the handwriting of the genuine paper with the handwriting of those in dispute, and his opinion that they were or

p. 360

were not, written Tby the same person. Upon such an examination the jury would have readily understood that Ms evidence was confined to a comparison of the writings, and his opinion was based thereon, wM-dr would naturally have given it less weight than his positive testimony, when the fact that he had no knowledge of the defendant’s writing except by such comparison might have been easily forgotten by the jury. Such proof was all that was justified by the statute and all that should 'have been allowed. He was also permitted to testify that a paper was in the defendant’s handwriting which was not presented to the court or jury, and which he had not seen since the standard offered in evidence was proved to be genuine, and upon this proof he was then permitted to give secondary evidence of the contents of such paper. We think the admission of tMs evidence in the form in which it was given was error.

Oscar F. Richardson, the bank examiner who- examined the Bank of Fayetteville, was called as a witness by the People early in the trial of the case. He was examined by the People and cross-examined- by the defendant and left the stand." After-wards, and during the trial, the defendant’s counsel desired to further cross-examine Mm, hut he was noit in court, having that morning or the previous night returned to his home in the city of Brooklyn. The defendant claims -that he has introduced affidavits to- -show that at the conclusion of his examination the defendant’s counsel stated to the district attorney, in the presence of the court, that -he desired to further cross-examine this witness, and desired him to remain in attendance for that purpose. The district attorney and others made affidavits that they heard no such request or notice from any source: The witness was in the city of Syracuse the night before he was called for further cross-examination, and the defendant’s attorney had reason to believe that he would be present when required, as one -of the defendant’s attorneys informed the witness the night before that they desired to recall Mm for further cross-examination. The court refused either to delay the trial to enable the defendant to procure the attendance of the witness, -or to strike ■out the evidence that he had already given on the ground that the defendant had not been permitted to fully cross-examine Mm. The defendant contends that this was error, and that the

p. 361

court should either have given him an opportunity to procure the attendance of the witness, or have stricken out the evidence he had already given.

It was said by Folger, J., in Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 87 : “It may be taken as the rule, that where a party, is deprived of the benefit of the cross-examination of a witness, by the act of the opposite party, or by the refusal to testify or other misconduct of the witness, or by any means other than the act of God, the act of the party himself, or some cause to which he assented, that the testimony given on the examination-in-chief may not be read.”

It was held in People v. Cole, 43 N. Y. 508 , that it was error to suffer to go to the jury any evidence given by a witness on direct examination by the People, where by sudden illness or by death of such witness, or other cause without the fault of and beyond the control of the prisoner, he is deprived of Ms right of cross-examination.

In Sheffield v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 21 Barb. 339 , where, on the trial, the plaintiff’s counsel, before dismissing the witness from the stand, inquired of the defendant’s counsel whether any of the facts testified to by the witness would be controverted, to which the def endant’s counsel replied that they should introduce no evidence on these points testified to by him, and the right of cross-examination was not reserved, but at the close of the trial the defendant’s counsel called the witness for further examination and he did not appear, having gone home, it was held that under these circumstances the plaintiffs were under no obligation to detain the witness for the purpose of further examination by the defendant’s counsel. In that case the court saidr “We are not called upon to decide whether, in every case where a party introduces and examines a witness, he is bound, at the peril of losing his evidence, to keep him in court until the trial is. closed, for the benefit of the adverse party. We incline to think the counsel should avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine before the witness leaves the stand, unless the court, for some good reason, should allow them the privilege at a subsequent stage of the trial. In this case, the plaintiff’s counsel had good reason to suppose the witness would not be wanted further by the defendant.”

p. 362

In Ruloff’s case, 11 Abb. N. S. 245, it was held by the trial judge that where witnesses have once been cross-examined, and have left the stand without reason to expect to be called again,, the fact that they do not appear when called again, to be further cross-examined as to a fact on which they were not previously examined, is not, necessarily, ground for striking out their testimony; especially where other evidence has already been given of the fact sought to be proved.

In Burden v. Pratt, 1 T. & C. 554, where a witness for the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined, and at the close of the cross-examination the defendant’s attorney gave notice to the witness and plaintiff’s attorney that he wished to further cross-examine the next day and desired the witness present at that time, and the trial continued and other witnesses were examined, it was held that the plaintiff was not bound to produce the witness on the following day, for further cross-examination.

“The court may, in all oases, permit a witness to be recalled, either for further examination-in-chief, or for further cross-examination.” Reynolds’ Stephen on Evidence, 178.

While the authorities upon this question are not in entire •harmony, and some of them would seem to justify the rulings of the court in this case, yet we are disposed to think the court should have permitted the defendant to secure the attendance ttf this witness, and held the trial open a reasonable length of time to enable him to do so. It can he readily seen by an examination of the-ease, how a further cross-examination of this wit-, ness might have been important to the defendant after the introduction of the other evidence given by the People. That the defendant intended to reserve the right of further cross-examination, and to give the People’s attorneys notice of that fact, ■we have no doubt. The affidavits of four witnesses are to the 'effect that such statement was made by the defendant’s counsel, while the affidavits in opposition are only to the effect that no sudh notice was heard, although at the trial one of the affiants simply stated that he did not remember that any such statement was made by the defendant’s attorney. Under these circumstances, we think the proper administration of justice would have been better served by permitting the defendant to

p. 363

secure the attendance of this witness, even if a brief postponement of the trial, until his attendance could be secured, had been necessary. Neil v. Thorn, 88 N. Y. 270 , 276.

There are other grave exceptions in the case, but as we think the judgment should be reversed for the errors already pointed out, and as those raised by the other exceptions will probably be avoided upon a second trial, we do not deem it necessary to specially consider them on this appeal.

Conviction, judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, and the clerk of Onondaga county directed to enter judgment and remit certified copy thereof with the return and decision of this court to the court of sessions of Onondaga county, pursuant to sections 547 and 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¡HARDIN, P. J., concurs; MERWIN, J., concurs in result.

Cases cited

People v. Cole 43 N. Y. 508 N.Y. 1871-01-24 p. 361
Sheffield & Herrender v. Rochester & Syracuse Rail Road 21 Barb. 339 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1856-03-03 p. 361
Neil v. Thorn 88 N. Y. 270 N.Y. 1882-03-07 at 276 p. 363