Gray v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1909 |
| Citation | 49 So. 678,160 Ala. 107 |
| Parties | GRAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; S. L. Weaver, Judge.
From a conviction of embezzlement, Andrew Gray appeals. Reversed and remanded.
See also. 47 So. 1038.
Indictment was in the following language, omitting the formal charging part: "Andrew Gray, being at the time the agent or clerk, to wit, the timekeeper, of the American Bridge Company of New York, a body corporate, did embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, or to the use of another, or did fraudulently secrete, with the intent to convert to his own use, or to the use of another, money, bank notes, checks, or bills of exchange of or about the amount of $1,651.28, and of that value, the personal property of the American Bridge Company of New York, a body corporate as aforesaid; said money, bank notes, checks, or bills of exchange having come into the possession of said Andrew Gray by virtue of his office or employment as such agent or clerk, against the peace and dignity," etc.
The demurrers to the indictment are as follows:
The jury found the amount embezzled to be $1,496.
The following charges were refused to the defendant:
W. T Ward, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment was not subject to the demurrers interposed thereto, and which were properly overruled. Bailey v State, 116 Ala. 439, 22 So. 918.
Many of the objections to the evidence grew out of the attempt of the state to establish the amount of funds received by the defendant as agent of the American Bridge Company, and which had not been accounted for by him. The defendant admitted getting $1,500, less cost of exchange, as agent for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Neil
... ... 1067; Brown v ... State, 54 Tex. Cr. 121, 112 S.W. 80; State v ... Sparks, 79 Neb. 504, 113 N.W. 154; State v. Missouri ... P. Ry. Co., 219 Mo. 156, 117 S.W. 1173; State v ... Hight, 150 N.C. 817, 63 S.E. 1043; People v ... Dudenhausen, 130 A.D. 760, 115 N.Y.S. 374; Gray v ... State, 160 Ala. 107, 49 So. 678; People v ... Friedman, 149 A.D. 873, 134 N.Y.S. 153; Dyar v ... United States, 186 F. 614, 108 C. C. A. 478; Johnson ... v. Commonwealth, 144 Ky. 287, 137 S.W. 1079; ... Shaffner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa. 60, 13 Am. Rep ... 649; Clark v ... ...
-
Evans v. State, 3 Div. 533
...property constitutes embezzlement on the one hand or some other crime on the other, or perhaps no crime at all. Relying upon Gary v. State, 160 Ala. 107, 49 So. 678, appellant urges that in the issuence and signing of the particular check in this case for the benefit of defendant, the crime......
-
Munoz v. State
...to be exchanged for the draft, but was to be cashed and the proceeds to be used in part to take up the draft. In the case of Gray v. State, 160 Ala. 107, 49 So. 678, defendant, under indictment for the embezzlement of 'money, bank notes, checks, or bills of exchange,' requested this charge,......
-
State v. Fox
... ... In the present case, there is ... not a scintilla of doubt about the proposition that the ... defendant possessed the right to sell the cotton. If he was ... guilty of embezzlement, he was guilty of embezzling the ... proceeds of the cotton, and not the cotton. Gray v ... State, 160 Ala. 107 (49 So. 678). Having the authority ... to sell the cotton, the defendant, even if he sold it with ... the intent to fraudulently convert the proceeds to his own ... use, was not guilty of embezzling the cotton." ... See, ... also, Henderson v ... ...