55 N.E. 739 (Ind. 1899), 19,057, Colip v. State

Docket Nº19,057
Citation55 N.E. 739, 153 Ind. 584
Opinion JudgeDowling, J.
Party NameColip v. The State
AttorneyS. D. Stuart and C. G. Reagan, for appellant. Wm. L. Taylor, Attorney-General, C. C. Hadley, Merrill Moores and John E. Garver, for State.
Case DateDecember 14, 1899
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 739

55 N.E. 739 (Ind. 1899)

153 Ind. 584

Colip

v.

The State

No. 19,057

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 14, 1899

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

S. D. Stuart and C. G. Reagan, for appellant.

Wm. L. Taylor, Attorney-General, C. C. Hadley, Merrill Moores and John E. Garver, for State.

OPINION

Page 740

[153 Ind. 585] Dowling, J.

Information founded upon an affidavit charging appellant with the crime of petit larceny. Trial by jury. Verdict of guilty. Motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment on verdict that appellant be committed to the care and custody of the board of managers of the Indiana Reformatory, etc., that the State of Indiana recover from the appellant the sum of $ 1 as a fine, and that he pay all costs, etc.

The only error discussed on this appeal is the ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial. It is insisted that the verdict and judgment, respectively, are "contrary to law" and "contrary to the evidence."

The first point made is that the appellant, if guilty at all, was guilty of the crime of embezzlement, and not of larceny.

The evidence shows that he boarded and lodged at the residence of the prosecuting witness on a farm, and that occasionally he did small jobs of work for said witness, such as feeding and caring for live stock, building fences, hauling [153 Ind. 586] manure and the like. During the temporary absence from home of the prosecuting witness, appellant, who remained on the farm with the family of the prosecuting witness, without the knowledge or consent of the prosecuting witness, or of any of his family, broke open a large box containing a lot of wheat belonging to the prosecuting witness, and removed some twelve bushels therefrom, which he hauled away and sold. Afterward, when charged with taking the wheat, he denied it.

Counsel for appellant contend that the appellant was the servant or employe of the prosecuting witness, that, as such servant or employe, he had access to the wheat, and that his felonious appropriation of the same fell within the provisions of § 2022 Burns 1894, defining the crime of embezzlement, the substance of which may be thus stated:

Every servant or employe of any person, who, having access to, control, or possession of, any article or thing of value to the possession of which his employer is entitled, shall, while in such employment, take, purloin, secrete, or in any way whatever appropriate to his own use any property, or thing of value belonging to, or held by, such person, in whose employment said servant or employe may be, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned, etc.

The access to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • 184 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1933), 26,132, Green v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 31, 1933
    ...statement that, "We think these cases (meaning the case of Ritter v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 324, 12 N.E. 501; Colip v. State (1899), 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; State v. Winstandley (1900), 154 Ind. 443, 57 N.E. 109; State v. Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E......
  • 203 P. 306 (Or. 1922), State v. Keelen
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • January 10, 1922
    ...vol. 2, §§ 1195, 1196; 20 Corpus Juris, 418, note 76; Holbrook v. State, 107 Ala. 154, 18 So. 109, 54 Am. St. Rep. 65; Colip v. State, 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; Dignowitty v. State, 17 Tex. 521, 67 Am. Dec. 670; Justices v. People, 90 N.Y. 12, 43 Am. Rep. 135; State v.......
  • 37 P.2d 793 (Wyo. 1934), 1898, Uram v. Roach
    • United States
    • Wyoming United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 23, 1934
    ...plaintiff was eligible to confinement in the industrial institute was merely advisory. In the matter of Clayton, supra; Colip v. State, 153 Ind. 584, 589, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322. As liability to transfer upon specified conditions was a part of the original sentence, such Page 796 ......
  • 184 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1933), 26,132, Green v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 31, 1933
    ...statement that, "We think these cases (meaning the case of Ritter v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 324, 12 N.E. 501; Colip v. State (1899), 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; State v. Winstandley (1900), 154 Ind. 443, 57 N.E. 109; State v. Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • 184 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1933), 26,132, Green v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 31, 1933
    ...statement that, "We think these cases (meaning the case of Ritter v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 324, 12 N.E. 501; Colip v. State (1899), 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; State v. Winstandley (1900), 154 Ind. 443, 57 N.E. 109; State v. Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E......
  • 203 P. 306 (Or. 1922), State v. Keelen
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • January 10, 1922
    ...vol. 2, §§ 1195, 1196; 20 Corpus Juris, 418, note 76; Holbrook v. State, 107 Ala. 154, 18 So. 109, 54 Am. St. Rep. 65; Colip v. State, 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; Dignowitty v. State, 17 Tex. 521, 67 Am. Dec. 670; Justices v. People, 90 N.Y. 12, 43 Am. Rep. 135; State v.......
  • 37 P.2d 793 (Wyo. 1934), 1898, Uram v. Roach
    • United States
    • Wyoming United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 23, 1934
    ...plaintiff was eligible to confinement in the industrial institute was merely advisory. In the matter of Clayton, supra; Colip v. State, 153 Ind. 584, 589, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322. As liability to transfer upon specified conditions was a part of the original sentence, such Page 796 ......
  • 184 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1933), 26,132, Green v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 31, 1933
    ...statement that, "We think these cases (meaning the case of Ritter v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 324, 12 N.E. 501; Colip v. State (1899), 153 Ind. 584, 55 N.E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; State v. Winstandley (1900), 154 Ind. 443, 57 N.E. 109; State v. Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT