Dowdy v. State

Decision Date22 June 1901
PartiesDOWDY v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from district court, Bowie county; J. M. Talbot, Judge.

W. S. Dowdy was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Glass, Estes & King, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of embezzlement, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.

Omitting formal portions, the charging part of the indictment is as follows: That appellant "was the bailee of certain money bailed to him by J. N. Cranford, to wit, the sum of sixty-four dollars in money, of the value of sixty-four dollars, which money was the property of the said J. N. Cranford, and had come into the possession and was under the care of the said W. S. Dowdy by virtue of his said agency and employment as bailee as aforesaid; and the said W. S. Dowdy did then and there, fraudulently, without the consent of the said J. N. Cranford, his principal and employer, embezzle, misapply, and convert to his own use the said money, against the peace and dignity of the state." Appellant attacked this indictment for various reasons. This indictment is sufficient. Goodwyn v. State (decided at present term) 64 S. W. 251; Reside v. State, 10 Tex. App. 675, Brown v. State, 23 Tex. App. 214, 4 S. W. 588. The money is sufficiently described. Taylor v. State, 29 Tex. App. 499, 16 S. W. 302; Lewis v. State, 28 Tex. App. 140, 12 S. W. 736; Thompson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 511, 34 S. W. 629; Smith v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 265, 30 S. W. 236; Bell v. State (decided at present term) 62 S. W. 567.

The money being sufficiently described, it was not error, under the authorities cited, to permit the state to prove the character of the money.

Nor was it error to permit the written contract or receipt for the money given by appellant to Cranford to be introduced in evidence. It was not necessary to allege this in the indictment. Taylor v. State, 29 Tex. App. 500, 16 S. W. 302.

The evidence introduced supports the allegations of the indictment, and shows a case of embezzlement. The judgment is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 25, 1928
    ...of bailment. State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407; Reg. v. Aden, 12 Cox C.C. 512; Goodwyn v. State (Tex. Crim.), 64 S.W. 251; Dowdy v. State (Tex. Crim.), 64 S.W. 253. Any property which would be the subject of larceny may be embezzled as by a bailee. State v. Seeney, 59 Atl. 48; State v. Meyers, ......
  • State v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 25, 1928
    ......Bailment was shown. Sec. 3329, R. S. 1919, which creates the offense with which the defendant is. charged, specifically recognizes money as the possible. subject of bailment. State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407;. Reg. v. Aden, 12 Cox C. C. 512; Goodwyn v. State. (Tex. Crim.), 64 S.W. 251; Dowdy v. State (Tex. Crim.), 64 S.W. 253. Any property which would be the. subject of larceny may be embezzled as by a bailee. State. v. Seeney, 59 A. 48; State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266. The evidence clearly shows that the defendant was not. the agent of the prosecuting witness nor of Mrs. Adams. They. ......
  • Wray v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 25, 1921
    ...App. 491, 16 S. W. 302; Smith v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 30 S. W. 236; Thompson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 34 S. W. 629; Dowdy v. State, 64 S. W. 253; and other cases collated in Branch's Ann. Penal Code, § The appellant was employed by an oil company as foreman to supervise the drill......
  • Stein v. State, 18665.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 3, 1937
    ...we held in an embezzlement case that the description of the accused in the indictment as bailee was sufficient. See, also, Dowdy v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 64 S.W. 253, and Goodwyn v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 64 S. W. 251. We quote from Malz v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 451, 34 S.W. 267, 37 S.W. 748,......
  • 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