Crouse v. State

• Decision Date: 12 January 1933
• Docket Number: 60.
• Parties: CROUSE v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

163 A. 699

163 Md. 431

CROUSE v. STATE.

No. 60.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 12, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; William H. Forsythe, Jr. Judge.

Nevin W. Crouse was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, and PARKE, JJ.

Alexander Armstrong, of Baltimore (Ivan L. Hoff and James E. Boylan Jr., both of Westminster, on the brief), for appellant.

William L. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Wm. Preston Lane, Jr., Atty Gen., and Theo. F. Brown, State's Atty., of Westminster on the brief), for the State.

ADKINS J.

The appellant was indicted for embezzlement. The indictment charged that:

"The said Nevin W. Crouse being then and there the cashier of the Pleasant Valley Bank of Carroll County, a body corporate of the State of Maryland, and as such cashier of the Pleasant Valley Bank of Carroll County, having received into his possession for, on account of and in the name of the said, The Pleasant Valley Bank of Carroll County, his employer, the sum of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars, current money of the United States of the value of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars, did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently embezzle said sum of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars current money of the United States, of the value of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars, of the money and property of the said, The Pleasant Valley Bank of Carroll County.

Contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided and against the peace, government and dignity of the State."

He demurred to the indictment, and the court overruled the demurrer. Whereupon appellant pleaded "not guilty," and the case was tried by a jury which returned a verdict of guilty. This appeal is from a judgment on that verdict.

The only question raised by the appeal is the correctness of the ruling on the demurrer. The contention of the appellant is that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to assert that the act or acts with which he was charged were feloniously committed by him. Bosco v. State, 157 Md. 407, 409, 146 A. 238, and cases there cited, would seem to be conclusive against that contention. See, also, Joyce on Indictments, par. 333.

Appellant was charged with a statutory offense under section 129 of article 27 of the Code, and the indictment is in the language of the statute. It further makes clear the particular...