Chanock v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 April 1920
• Docket Number: 3326.
• Citation: 267 F. 612
• Parties: CHANOCK v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

267 F. 612

CHANOCK v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3326.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

April 5, 1920

Submitted March 2, 1920

M. E O'Brien and W. J. Lambert, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

J. E Laskey, U.S. Atty., and Morgan H. Beach, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Washington, D.C.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment based upon a verdict finding the appellant guilty of the crime of larceny.

It appears that defendant was bookkeeper and clerk in the Dewey Hotel, in this city. One Arnold, with his wife and daughter registered at the hotel as guests. Arnold gave defendant two envelopes, containing securities and money, to be placed in the hotel safe. During the following night defendant opened the safe, took the securities and all of the money but $10 from the envelopes, and absconded. When arrested, the property was found in his possession.

The judgment is challenged chiefly upon the ground that the indictment charged larceny, while the proof established embezzlement. Section 837 of the District Code provides:

'Any person intrusted with anything of value, to be carried for hire, or being an innkeeper and intrusted by his guest with anything of value for safe-keeping, who fraudulently converts the same to his own use, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement and punished as provided in section eight hundred and thirty-four.' Section 834 relates to 'embezzlement by agent, attorney, clerk, or servant. ' Defendant occupied none of these relations to Arnold, nor was he an innkeeper, as defined in section 837. He was a mere employe of the hotel. The securities and money were committed to the custody of defendant for a specific purpose, namely, to be placed in the safe for safe-keeping until called for by the owner. The power of defendant over the property extended to placing it in the safe and returning it, when requested by the owner. In People v. Montarial, 120 Cal. 691, 695, 53 P. 355, where one of two roommates intrusted the other with his money for safe-keeping, and the latter placed it in his trunk, subject to the former's call, the taking by the custodian was held to be larceny. On this point the court, referring to and affirming a former decision (People v. Johnson, 91 Cal. 265, 27 P. 663) said:

'Where the owner puts his property into the hands of another, to do some act in relation to it in his presence, he does not part with the possession of

...