Eilers v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1895 |
| Citation | 30 S.W. 811 |
| Parties | EILERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Lavaca county court; P. H. Green, Judge.
G. Eilers was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals. Reversed.
Bagby & Son, for appellant. Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of embezzling $6.85 in money belonging to T. H. Pulliam. Pulliam employed appellant to collect about $5,000 of old store accounts, and agreed to give him one-half of the collections. Appellant agreed to pay costs of collections, and on this line there was an issue as to whether court costs were included. The testimony left this in doubt. The accounts were turned over to appellant, and some collections were made and suits brought. Pulliam also collected some of the debts, and each seemed to have retained collections made by himself. Neither accounted to the other for any of the amounts collected, and there had been no settlement between them. The money alleged to have been converted was collected by appellant from one Creswell. Under appellant's view of the responsibility of Pulliam for court costs, he paid Pulliam's half of the $6.85 to a justice of the peace, in the way of costs on some suits brought by him for Pulliam to force collection of said accounts. These cost bills amounted to $12 or $15, as shown by the evidence of the justice of the peace. Under this state of case we do not think an embezzlement was shown. The testimony fails to disclose any fraudulent intent or conversion. If it be admitted that $3.42½ of the $6.85 paid the justice was Pulliam's, and appellant had agreed to pay all such costs, yet Pulliam had collected some of the accounts, amounting to not less than $45 or more, and had not accounted to appellant for his half of such collections; and it would be but fair that appellant should apply moneys coming into his hands by reason of such collections to the payment of these amounts due him by Pulliam. There must be a fraudulent intent connected with the conversion of money in order to constitute embezzlement. We do not think this shown in this case, wherefore the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinds v. Territory of Arizona
... ... defendant as well as the court of the nature of the offense ... charged. Thompson v. State, 26 Ark. 330; ... Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Cochran v ... United States, 157 U.S. 290, 15 S.Ct. 628, 39 L.Ed. 705 ... To the ... every crime or public offense there must exist a union or ... joint operation of act and intent, or criminal ... negligence." Eilers v. State, 34 Tex. App. 344, ... 30 S.W. 811 ... Felonious ... intent is an essential ingredient of embezzlement. State ... v. Marco, 32 ... ...
-
The State v. Cunningham
... ... Most of the statutes, by ... the use of various terms, expressly require this. Even when ... they do not, the necessity for such an intent is to be ... implied. There must be, as in larceny, a fraudulent intent to ... deprive the owner of his property and appropriate the ... same." [ Eilers v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 344, 30 ... S.W. 811.] The word unlawfully where used in the instruction ... does not supply the [154 Mo. 179] word felonious, or the ... words fraudulently, etc., for while defendant may have ... unlawfully converted the money to his own use, it does not ... ...
-
State v. Pate
...be implied. There must be, as in larceny, a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his property and appropriate the same.' Eilers v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 344 . The word `unlawfully,' where used in the instruction, does not supply the word `felonious,' or the words `fraudulently,' etc., ......
-
State v. Cunningham
...There must be, as in larceny, a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his property, and appropriate the same." Eilers v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 30 S. W. 811. The word "unlawfully," where used in the instruction, does not supply the word "felonious," or the word "fraudulently," etc.;......