Summary

Edward Douglass White Coffin v. United States (162 U.S. 664…

It is evident that no matter how active the co-operation of third persons may have been in the wrongful act of a bank officer or agent, such third person is required to be charged as an aider and abettor in the offense and prosecuted as such. The primary object of the statute was to protect the bank from the acts of its own servants. As between officers and agents of the bank and third persons co-operating to defraud the bank, the statute contemplates that a bank officer shall be treated as a principal offender. In every criminal offense there must, of course, be a principal
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Coffin v. United States (162 U.S. 664…

Hence, if the natural and ordinary consequence of the acts of Haughey and the defendants, as shown by the proofs, were to injure and defraud the bank as charged, you would be authorized to find that such was their intent, if such intent is in harmony with the other proofs in the case.'
It cannot be disputed that a bank president not acting in good faith has no right to permit overdrafts when he does not believe, and has no reasonable ground to believe, that the moneys can be repaid.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Coffin v. United States (162 U.S. 664…

The abettor, within the meaning of the statute, must stand in the same relation to the crime as the principal, approach it from the same direction, touch it at the same point. This is not the case with the purchaser of liquor. His approach to the crime is from the other side. He touches it at wholly another point. It is somewhat like the case of a man who provokes or challenges a man to fight with him. If the other knocks him down, he has induced, but in no proper sense abetted, this act of violence.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature