People v. Bauman

• Decision Date: 28 May 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 516,105 Mich. 543
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BAUMAN.

63 N.W. 516

105 Mich. 543

PEOPLE v. BAUMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 28, 1895

Error to recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin, Judge.

Steve Bauman was convicted of embezzlement, and brings error. Reversed.

James V. D. Willcox (E. F. Bacon, of counsel), for appellant.

Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., and Ormond F. Hunt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

HOOKER J.

The defendant appeals from a verdict and sentence upon a charge of embezzlement. He sold cigars for the complainant, and was authorized to make collections. Incidental expenses, such as money used in saloons, were adjusted from time to time, but he was expected to make reports of collections and expenses at short intervals, if not daily. The testimony introduced on behalf of the prosecution tended to show that the defendant had collected moneys from customers which he had failed to report and had denied receiving, and that he was short upward of $100. The testimony for the defendant does not dispute a possible shortage, but tends to establish the facts that there was no intentional concealment; that it was usual for him to appropriate some of the money collected and apply it upon his salary; that he was sometimes overpaid or had drawn or used to the extent of $75 or $100 in advance of his earnings; but that it was never with the fraudulent or felonious design of cheating or defrauding his employer.

In his charge to the jury the court said: "He is charged with not having done that; that is to say, with not having turned in the moneys which he collected. Now, if you find from the evidence in this case that he retained these moneys, it is not necessary that he appropriate them to his own use. If he retained the moneys, if he made these collections, and kept them, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the case, then, of course, it will be your duty to convict, and your verdict will be guilty. *** If you are satisfied from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did make these collections, and that he did not turn the moneys in,-all the money which he collected,-barring, of course, the amount which he was authorized to spend, if you believe that he was authorized by C. P. Collins & Co. to spend a portion of what he collected for the purpose of advertising their business, but if you believe that he kept more than that, then, of course, it will be your duty to convict. *** If...