Farmer v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 23 March 1906
• Citation: 91 S.W. 1129
• Parties: FARMER v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

91 S.W. 1129

FARMER v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 23, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harlan County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Milton Farmer was convicted of fraudulently converting the property of another, and appeals. Reversed.

W. F Hall, for appellant.

N. B Hays, for the Commonwealth.

CARROLL C.

The appellant was indicted under the act approved March 21, 1902 (Laws 1902, p. 151, c. 66), and which provides that "any person who shall sell, dispose of, or convert to his own use any money, property of other thing of value, without the consent of the owner thereof, shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years, if the money, property or other thing of value sold disposed of or converted be of the value of twenty dollars or more," and upon the trial was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years.

His counsel insist that the indictment, to which a demurrer was entered and overruled, is fatally defective. The indictment is as follows: "The grand jury of Harlan county, in the name and by the authority of the commonwealth of Kentucky accuse Milton Farmer of the crime of converting money of the value of twenty dollars and more, the property of another person, without the consent of the owner thereof, committed in the manner and form as follows, namely: The said Milton Farmer on the 16th day of August, 1905, in the county aforesaid did unlawfully convert to his own use two hundred and twenty dollars ($220) and other sums of money of the value of twenty dollars and more, the property of and belonging to Grant Skidmore, without the consent of said Skidmore, and against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of Kentucky."

The identical question here made was before this court in the Commonwealth v. Barney, 74 S.W. 181, 24 Ky. Law Rep 2352. In that case, not only the sufficiency of the indictment, but the validity of the act under which it was found, was called in question, and the court, by Judge O'Rear, held the act to be constitutional, but that it was necessary to charge in an indictment under it that the person accused was guilty of a fraudulent intent and that he occupied some confidential relation to the person whose money or property he fraudulently converted or obtained, such as being the servant, agent, or the like; and the indictment in that case was held not to be good because it...