Lacy v. State

Decision Date11 February 1915
Docket Number157
Citation13 Ala.App. 212,68 So. 706
PartiesLACY v. STATE. [*]
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1915

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Armstead Brown, Judge.

Theo Lacy, alias, was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals. Affirmed.

James G. Oakley was appointed as president of the board of convict inspectors of the state in March, 1911, and on or about the same date the appellant, Lacy, was appointed, in the method required by the statute, to one of the offices provided for by section 6485 of the Code, viz., clerk of the convict department, and was known as the chief clerk of the department. The convict department was constantly receiving large sums of money arising from the hire of convicts and other sources, paid usually, if not always, in the form or by way of checks, drafts, or bills of exchange. Under the custom prevailing in the department, Lacy took charge of these checks and deposited them in bank. Prior to the 8th day of March, 1913, an account had been carried at the Montgomery Savings Bank, in the name of J.G. Oakley, President, to the credit of which account had been deposited a number of checks received by the convict department in payment of sums due by various parties. Upon this account Oakley, as president, had drawn several checks, each payable to the order of the treasurer of the state, the proceeds of which had gone into the treasury. There remained to the credit of that account on March 8th about $40,000. On March 8, 1913, Lacy deposited in that bank to the credit of that account various checks, drawn in payment of sums due the convict department, aggregating something over $100,000, stating at the time to the officials of the bank that he would desire to withdraw about the 11th of March, in cash, the entire amount to the credit of the above stated account.

Harold the president of the bank, being advised of this statement called on Oakley with reference to this statement of Lacy's and was told by Oakley that Lacy was correct, and that it would be desired by the convict department to withdraw the entire amount in cash. He further stated that since Harold was uncertain whether the entire amount could be collected in that time, and therefore uncertain whether he would be able to deliver the entire amount standing to the credit of the account in cash, Lacy would present a check signed by Oakley, drawn on the Montgomery Savings Bank and against said account, with the amount in which it was payable left blank, in order that it might be filled up for such amount as said bank might then be able to pay in cash. Oakley stated to Harold that he wanted the money in cash, as an examination of the convict department was in progress, and he wished to be able to report that the entire amount which the books of that department would show to be due the state was in the treasury in cash.

On the 11th day of March Lacy came to the bank with a blank check drawn on said bank and against said account, signed by J.G Oakley, president, and said check was filled in by Harold for the sum of $110,000, the amount which the bank was able to pay. In payment of this check there was delivered to Lacy $72,000 in cash, $22,000 of which was supplied by said bank, and $50,000 of which was furnished by the Montgomery Bank & Trust Company. The $22,000 furnished by the Montgomery Savings Bank was taken by Harold to the Montgomery Bank & Trust Company's office, to which place he went, accompanied by Lacy, and there placed in a pine box, together with the $50,000 furnished by the last-named bank. This box was sealed and placed in the vaults of the Montgomery Bank & Trust Company, with the understanding that Lacy would call for it the following day. At the same time Lacy was given two pieces of exchange on foreign banks, one for $18,000, and one for $20,000, each payable to the order of J.G. Oakley, president. These pieces of exchange were later indorsed by Oakley, and deposited to the credit of Oakley, president, in the Exchange National Bank of Montgomery.

On the following day Lacy called at the office of the Montgomery Bank & Trust Company, and was given, and went off with, the box containing the $72,000. This box he took into an automobile with him, and was driven to his residence, into which he went, carrying the box with him. Remaining therein for about ten minutes, he emerged with the box and a suit case, and was driven to the Union Station, where he gave the suit case to a negro, told him to check it at the parcel room, and then got out of the car and went into the station. When he returned, he was driven around various streets of Montgomery, and finally called at the Exchange National Bank, where, having previously ascertained that he could get cash to the extent of $18,000 on the deposit made the previous day, he presented Oakley's check for $18,000, which was paid to him in cash. Dismissing the automobile, he left the pine box in it, and, in answer to the inquiry of the driver, said that he did not care what became of the box. The driver threw it out on the ground, it being empty. Harold testified that both 0akley and Lacy stated that nothing but cash would do, as the convict department was being examined, and they wanted to report cash on hand.

During the morning of the 12th of March Lacy, by appointment, met Trawick, another clerk of the convict department, at a downtown saloon, and gave him two checks, each signed by Oakley, as president, one on the First National Bank of Birmingham, and one on the American Trust & Savings Bank, the two checks aggregating about $117,000, the exact amount disclosed by the books of the convict department to be due the state. These checks were dishonored, the convict department having $1 to its credit in one of said banks, and nothing in the other.

It was also shown that C.B. Brown, one of the state's witnesses, delivered to Lacy, to be turned over to Oakley or left on Oakley's desk, while the defendant was in the office, a check for $12,000, signed by Woolfolk, as cashier of the First National Bank, and payable to Brown; that this check was given for the purchase of timber on lands of the state in Elmore county; that the check was indorsed by Brown, and the evidence tended to show Lacy either deposited this check or collected it, and that its proceeds were a part of the funds which he embezzled.

After dismissing the chauffeur, Lacy disappeared, and though every effort was put forth by the state to discover his whereabouts and effect his capture, he remained at large until his voluntary surrender in January, 1914. Lacy was indicted, the indictment containing a number of counts charging, respectively, the embezzlement and the larceny of $50,000, was convicted thereunder, and from that judgment of conviction the appeal here considered is prosecuted. The case was submitted to the jury upon counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31 of the indictment, which said counts the reporter will set out in full. The reporter will set out in full the excerpts from the oral charge of the court to which the defendant excepted and the refused charges referred to in the opinion.

The following are the counts in the indictment directed to be set out:

(1) Omitting formal charging part, Theo Lacy, alias, being at the time a public officer of the state of Alabama, to wit, a clerk of the board of convict inspectors, the same being one of the officers designated in section 6485, Code of Alabama knowingly converted to his own use money received by him in his official capacity to about the amount of $50,000, which had been received by him in his official capacity as aforesaid.
(2) Theo Lacy, who was at the time the agent of James G. Oakley, embezzled or fraudulently converted to his own use, or fraudulently secreted with intent to convert to his own use, money to about the amount of $50,000, which came into his possession by virtue of his said office or employment.
(3) Theo Lacy, being at the time the bailee or trustee of the state of Alabama, embezzled or fraudulently converted to his own use money to about the amount of $50,000, which had come into his possession by virtue of such bailment or trusteeship.
(4) Theo Lacy, being at the time the bailee or trustee of the state of Alabama, did embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use bank notes, money, checks, or bills of exchange of or about the amount of $50,000, and of that value, the property of the state of Alabama, which came into his possession as such bailee or trustee.
(5) Theo Lacy, who was at the time the agent or servant of James G. Oakley, did embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, or fraudulently secrete with the intent to convert to his own use, bank notes, money, checks, bills of exchange, of or about the amount of $50,000 and of that value, the property of said James G. Oakley, which came into his possession by virtue of his office or employment.
(7) Theo Lacy, who was at the time agent of the Montgomery Savings Bank, a corporation, did embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, or fraudulently secrete with intent to convert to his own use, bank notes, money, checks, or bills of exchange of or about the amount of $50,000, and of that value, the property of the said Montgomery Savings Bank, a corporation, which came into his possession by virtue of his office or employment.
(13) Same as 3.
(14) Same as 5.
(16) Same as 7.
(21) Theo Lacy, being at the time the clerk, agent, or servant of James G. Oakley, as president of the board of inspectors of convicts of the state of Alabama, did embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use money to about the amount of $50,000, which came into his possession by virtue of his office or employment.
(26) Theo Lacy, alias, feloniously
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Hinds v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 1982
    ...defendant was the recipient of the benefits of the crime, or whether a third person reaped the benefits thereof." Lacy v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 225-26, 68 So. 706 (1915). "If the money was embezzled by others, with the assistance and connivance of the defendant, the mere fact that he did ......
  • National Surety Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 20 Junio 1929
    ... ... that this provision of the statute does not exempt from civil ... liability. The decisions citing or construing that amendment ... are not to the contrary. Gerald v. Walker, 201 Ala ... 502, 505, 78 So. 856; Moody v. Jacobs, 211 Ala. 291, ... 100 So. 467; Lacy v. State, 13 Ala. App. 212, 68 So ... 706; Ex parte Lacey, 193 ala. 677, 69 So. 1018; Ex parte ... Cowart, 201 Ala. 55, 77 So. 349; Clisby v. Mastin, ... 150 Ala. 132, 43 So. 742, 124 Am. St. Rep. 64 ... Acts ... 1915, p. 348, abolished the office of county treasurer and ... ...
  • State ex rel. Barney v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 1927
    ...v. Graham, 194 Cal. 516, 228 P. 1040, it is expressly repudiated. Hence Vaughn v. English, supra, is not authority. In Lacey v. State, 13 Ala. App. 212, 68 So. 706, a certain clerk in a department of the state government was held to be an officer, but the position held by him had been creat......
  • John M. Tyson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 Septiembre 2010
    ...with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. Lacy v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706 (1915). Constitutionally, the term ‘public office’ implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power, either by......
  • 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