note of authority sounded through his address-an authority born of toil in the midnight hour, extensive reading, clear thinking, accurate observation, and wide acquaintance with men and affairs. He was a ripe product of classic culture, which he strove so earnestly to perpetuate and the apparent decline of which he so deeply deplored.

He was quick to discern and generous

men. He had nothing but withering scorn for slovenliness and sloth. His fine idealism, combined with his prodigious capacity for work, were saving and sanctifying influences in his life; and may well be held up for emulation to the aspiring youth of to-day.

of the Clio. Part I. was published in an attractive form at the end of the tenth year; Part II. at the end of the twenty-fifth year; and Part III. at the end of the thirty-fifth year. Through his influence and liberality men of literary and political distinction were invited to address the Society from time to time. This is a plain and unvarnished tale of his relations to the Cliosophic from its beginning. Facts and figures, how-to encourage evidences of merit in young ever, are exponents of spirit and life. For an estimate of his work as a member of the Executive Committee, we cannot do better than quote the words in the article entitled, Retrospective, signed E. H. HI., in “Thirty-Five Years of the Clio." The writer says: "Possibly next to our beloved first President there is no one member who has contributed more largely to the success of the Society than the faithful and tireless Chairman of the Executive Committee for the first twenty years of the Clio's history, Mr. W. U. Hensel. Again and again in by-gone times he threw himself into the breach when others could not or would not do so. If an essayist failed at the last moment he filled in the place; if by reason of sickness or for any other cause a family could not keep its engagement to entertain, his house was at the disposal of the perplexed committee; if the discussion flagged and the silence became oppressive, the brilliant leader of the opposition became the whip of the house, and, if the truth dare be told, often contradicted himself more than once in the course of the same even-heated arguments of zealous opponents. ing."

For presiding officer he was to the manner born. By nature and by nurture he was a leader of men. In his veins flowed the blood of a sturdy and noble race, a blend of Scotch-Irish and German strains, in which were the potencies of a high type of American manhood. His native talents, however, were cultivated from youth up by severe discipline and indefatigable industry. The secret of his leadership, which was freely acknowledged wherever he went, was largely in his mastery of the art of expression. He spoke and wrote in crystal phrase. His voice, clear as a bell, penetrated and charmed his audience. The

His

In presiding over the meetings of the Cliosophic, and in opening the discussion, no less than in the reading of his essays, his marvelous versatility came to view. He readily grasped the vital issues of a paper. Clearly and concisely he summarized the argument. He was frank, but always tolerant, in his expressions of agreement or dissent. speech was enlivened by epigram, anecdote, and rippling humor. He was master of the almost lost art of literary allusion. The Greek and Latin Classics, the Bible and Shakespeare, the English and American poets and essayists, furnished him many a proof for argument and many a gem for ornament. He was quick at repartee, skilled in provoking debate, and with fine diplomacy moderated irreconcilable and sometimes over

His interest in the Cliosophic was rooted in his social disposition, his enthusiasm for literary culture, and his devotion to the city in which he lived. He loved the Society because it satisfied the nobler aspirations of his soul.

We shall miss the touch of the vanished hand and the sound of the voice that is still; but his presence and his speech will linger in the memory of the members and the guests of the Society. Long as the Cliosophic lasts, it will be a living witness of the genius of one of Lancaster's distinguished sons, of Pennsylvania's prominent men, and of America's loval citizens.

Adopted by the Executive Committee.

LANCASTER LAW REVIEW. then the Commonwealth has made out

larceny as bailee where it was formed | checks for a considerable portion of the after possession.

Com. v. Henwood, 52 Pa. 424.

Here the attempt to renew showed that the intent was formed after possession, and a conviction of larceny would have been, erroneous.

Com. v. Krause, 93 Pa. 418.
Com. v. Dehle, 42 Super. 300.
Com. v. Chathams, 50 Pa. 180.
Com. v. Smith, 1 Clark 400.

The mailing of the notes from Lancaster county fixed the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.

February 24. 1915. Opinion by HEAD, J.

A concise statement of the facts as they have been established by the verdict of the jury will readily disclose the legal questions involved in this appeal.

On July 31, 1911, the firm, of which the prosecutor is a member, executed and delivered to the corporation, of which the defendant is an officer, two promissory notes, one for $1,020.00, the other for $720.00. They matured in four months from that date. The defendant's company had these two notes discounted by the First National Bank of Wrightsville, York county. When they were about to mature the defendant prepared and sent to the makers two notes in the same amounts, with a request that they be executed and promptly returned to him. This was done to enable him to take up and renew the notes which had been discounted. For that purpose, and for that purpose only, this defendant received those notes. After receiving them he went to the bank and sought to renew the obligations which had become due. In this effort he was, of course, carrying out, or attempting to carry out the purpose for which the notes had been made and put into his possession. The bank, however, declined the offer of renewal and insisted the original notes be paid. The defendant retained the two notes in his possession for several days, made no report to the makers of his inability to secure the renewals, and then went to the city of Lancaster where he mailed the notes to an association in New York ty and received from that company

face value of the notes. Upon ascertaining these facts, the makers of the two notes last referred to started this prosecution, as a result of which the defendant has been convicted of the offense of larceny by bailee.

As to many of the facts to which we have referred, there was quite a conflict of evidence. In every such case the question was fairly submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge, and the verdict has answered each of such questions adversely to the contention of the defendant. It is now argued for the defendant, as the first legal proposition. that if he was guilty of any crime under the facts stated, the offense was larceny, and not larceny by bailee. The argument advanced is, that where one secures the possession of the personal property of another by trick, artifice or cunning, and then converts it, the offense is larceny. As a result of the application of that legal principle to the facts established, it is urged that when the defendant prepared and sent to the prosecutor the two notes in question on the pretense that he would use them to renew the outstanding ones, he secured possession of the owner's property either by trick and artifice, or by a false representation as to the use that would be made of them. Under these circumstances it is argued that although he might be guilty of larceny or of false pretense, he would not be guilty of the offense charged, namely, larceny by bailee. Such argument fails to give due significance to the important facts established by the verdict. There is no evidence that when the defendant prepared the notes and sent them to the prosecutor for execution, he intended to do aught else with them than to use them, as the makers intended they should be used, in renewing the maturing obligations. Whatever may have been secretly in the mind of the defendant, every act performed by him thus far in the transaction was a perfectly legitimate one and referable to a motive wholly innocent. The jury were warranted then in reaching the conclusion that the defendant did not obtain possession of the two notes either by trick, artifice or false

came almost inevitable in the light of the further fact, that upon the receipt of the notes, the defendant took them to the bank and made an apparently honest effort to accomplish the object for which they had been placed in his hands. It does not appear that prior to that time he had any knowledge they would be declined by the bank, and therefore his act in offering them was naturally and properly considered by the jury as satisfactory evidence of his good faith down to that time.

representation. Such a conclusion be- | boundaries of guilt and innocence in such a transaction. The defendant, on this point, offered evidence tending to prove that the notes were sent to New York, not from the city of Lancaster, as the Commonwealth claimed, but from York. county. The learned trial judge could not do otherwise than submit this question to the jury, and this he did under instructions, the fairness of which could not be and is not challenged. With that fact found, there is no longer room for argument that the court in Lancaster county was without jurisdiction of the offense.

But it is further urged that if the offense charged in the indictment was committed by the defendant, the conversion of the property of the prosecutor occurred in York county and therefore the offense was not triable by the Quarter Sessions of Lancaster county. In support of this it is argued that when the defendant failed in his effort to use the notes properly, the fact that he retained the possession of them and did not return them promptly to the owners

amounted to a conversion. Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that the mere retention, for a few days, of the possession which had been law fully acquired might be regarded as evidence of an intent to convert, such retained possession could much more naturally be ascribed to any one of many innocent reasons. It is a safer proposition to hold the law cannot deal with a purely mental attitude. It must await the performance of some overt act indicative of the state of mind which prompted it. The inquiry then in the present case would only be, when and where did the defendant first perform an act that was not consistent with an honest intent to return the notes to the makers but on the contrary was clearly expressive of a design to break away from his obligation as a bailee and convert the property of another to his own use? If from the hotel in Lancaster City he wrote the letter and there mailed it, which carried these notes to the party in New York who discounted them, he then and there performed an act entirely inconsistent with an intent to keep within the law and his duty and stepped across the line which marks the

Every necessary ingredient of the offense charged has been thus proven by evidence which the jury has determined to be true, and we are unable to discover, either in the conduct of the trial or the

legal conclusions reached by the learned trial judge, any reversible error. All of the specifications of error are therefore overruled.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the defendant appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part of it that had not been performed at the time this appeal became a supersedeas.

tached the money of the defendants in the possession of the garnishee. It was served on the garnishee on November 21, 1914. In answer to the interroga- | tories the garnishee said that

"Answer 2.-At the time of the service of the above attachment James Ream had on deposit to his credit in the Ephrata National Bank the sum of Two Hundred Dollars and Seventy-one Cents ($200.71), but the said James Ream was and is indebted to the said The Ephrata National Bank in the sum of Eighty-five Dollars ($85) evidenced by three notes, copies of which notes are herewith attached and made a part of this answer." None of the notes were due at the time the attachment was served, nor did they become due until nearly two months afterwards. The plaintiff on January 9, 1915, entered this rule for judgment against the garnishee for the whole amount which it admits was in its possession, at the time the attachment was served. He contends that the alleged indebtedness cannot be set-off against his claim to the fund, for the reason that the notes were not due at that time.

must pay the whole amount of the deposit to the receiver, and present its notes to the receiver, and share in the distribution of the estate with the other creditors. The Court said, "The case of Chipman v. The Ninth National Bank, 120 Pa. 86 (1888), controls the present contention. In this case a rule for judgment was discharged by the Court, and, on appeal, the judgment of the lower court was reversed and judgment entered for the plaintiff, the court holding that 'in an action by an assignee for the benefit of creditors to recover from a bank a balance to the credit and subject to the check of the assignor at the date of the assignment, the bank cannot set off notes or drafts indorsed by and discounted for the assignor before but maturing after the assignment."

"This case was approved in Oyster v. Short, 177 Pa. 589, and the principle was affirmed in United States Brick Co. v. Reading Shale Brick Co., 228 Pa. 81."

A bank cannot claim a lien on the account of a depositor for undue notes as against an assignee, attaching creditor, or payee of a check, even though the account is the proceeds of such undue notes: Crall v. Ford, 28 W. N. 366 (Supreme Court case); Pennell v. Grubb, 13 Pa. 552; Roig v. Tim, 103 Pa. 115.

It is clear from these cases that the

garnishee in this case had no claim to the money of the defendant on deposit with it for the notes, as they were not due at the time the attachment was served. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the whole of the amount, and we make absolute the rule for judgment, and enter judgment for the plaintiff against the garnishee for the sum of $200.71. Rule made absolute.

In disposing of a similar answer, in the Manufacturers National Bank v. Jones, 2 Pennypacker 377, the Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion said: "It is established, as is shown in the opinion of our brother Trunkey, in Dougherty v. Central National Bank, 9 Weekly Notes, I, that a bank has no lien on money standing to the credit of one of its depositors for the amount of a note of such depositor, discounted by the bank but which has not matured. It is clear that the mere insolvency of the depositor intervening cannot affect the question as against a creditor attaching the fund." In Jones v. Manufacturers National Bank, 99 Pa. 317, interest was allowed M. Frank, Trading as The Fashion, v. Harry on the money so deposited because the action of the garnishee in making such a claim of lien or set-off delayed the plaintiff in getting possession of it.

In Blum Brothers, Incorporated, v. Girard National Bank, 23 D. R. 265, it is decided that the bank had no right to charge up notes, not due at the time a receiver for the depositor was appointed, against the account of the depositor, but

Contor.

Bankruptcy - New Promise by Discharged Debtor.

A part payment and promise to pay the balceedings on receiving a statement of the same. ance of a claim barred by bankruptcy prowill sustain a suit and recovery against the bankrupt debtor.

Rule for judgment for defendant n.

0. V.