Where a bank officer fraudulently represents his bank to be solvent and obtains a deposit, his offense has been defined to be the obtaining of money by false pretenses.1 Insolvency under such statutes means that condition where the bank is unable to meet its liabilities as they become due in the ordinary course of business.2 An exception is made in some statutes as to the receipt of a deposit where the depositor is indebted to the bank, but it must be such a deposit as the bank would have the right to appropriate to its claim.3 Such statutes have been held not to apply to private bankers.4 Making such an act a criminal offense in a private banker does not cause imprisonment for debt, nor does it deny to the banker the equal protection of the laws.5 The reasons why insolvency exists and the agency of the defendant in producing the condition is immaterial.6 The deposit need not be received in the banking rooms,7 nor by the defendant himself.3 The offense is committed by keeping the bank open and permitting the reception of deposits, knowing it to be insolvent;9 but even the element of knowledge is dispensed with by some statutes.10 But if the officer forbids the reception of the deposit, he is not guilty,11 unless he afterwards received it.12 There is no necessity to allege in the indictment that any one was injured,13 but the fact of insolvency should be alleged as a fact and not inferentiallv.14 This offense is some-times defined as the creating of indebtedness of the bank by receiving deposits while the bank was insolvent.15 A similar offense of fraud is perpetrated by selling a draft, knowing the drawer bank to be insolvent, and that before the draft can be cashed the fund against which it is drawn will be exhausted.16 In states requiring a popular vote to ratify a banking law, a statute defining a criminal offense as to banking does not need to be ratified by popular vote.17 Other matters of evidence are ruled upon in cases in the note.18

1 Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 18 S W. R 359, 19 S. W. R 189. Exhibiting false books. People v. Helmer, 43 N. Y. Supp. 642. The rule applies to certificates of deposit. State v. Shore, 70 N. W. R 312.

2 State v. Caldwell, 79 Iowa, 432. Capital stock and surplus are considered resources. State v. Myers, 54 Kan. 206. See also Meadowcroft v. People, 163 I11. 56.

3 State v. Beach, 43 N. E. R 949; Nichols v. State, 46 Neb. 715. Compare Commonwealth v. Scholl, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R 209. But it is no defense that the depositor can follow the deposit as a trust fund. State v. Eifert, 71 N. W. R 248.

4 State v. Kelsey, 89 Mo. 623. Compare State v. Smith, 62 Minn. 540, and next case.

5 Commonwealth v. Sponsler, 16 Pa. Co. Ct R 116, reversed 170 Pa. 194; Baker v. State, 54 Wis. 368

6 Carr v. State, 104 Ala. 4.

7 State v. Yetzer, 97 Iowa, 423.

8 State v. Caldwell, 79 Iowa, 432.