People v. Field

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BUSHNELL
• Citation: People v. Field, 290 Mich. 173, 287 N.W. 422 (Mich. 1939)
• Decision Date: 05 September 1939
• Docket Number: No. 120.,120.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FIELD.

290 Mich. 173

287 N.W. 422

PEOPLE

v.FIELD.

No. 120.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 5, 1939.

Jess R. Field was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.

Sentence vacated and cause remanded for new trial.Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Thaddeus B. Taylor, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Allaben & Wiarda, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Fred N. Searl, Pros. Atty., and Menso R. Bolt, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Grand Rapids, for the People.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Defendant Field was allowed an appeal from a sentence imposed after his conviction by a jury of the crime of embezzlement. He was charged with the violation of the provisions of Section 174 of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931 (Stat.Ann. § 28.371). See 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 16980, as amended. This section reads:

‘Any person who as the agent, servant or employe of another, or as the trustee, bailee or custodian of the property of another, or of any partnership, voluntary association, public or private corporation, or of this state, or of any county, city, village, township or school district within this state, shall fraudulently dispose of or convert to his own use, or take or secrete with intent to convert to his own use without the consent of his principal, any money or other personal property of his principal which shall have come to his possession or shall be under his charge or control by virtue of his being such agent, servant, employe, trustee, bailee or custodian, as aforesaid, shall be guilty of the crime of embezzlement, and upon conviction thereof, if the money or personal property so embezzled shall be of the value of fifty (50) dollars or under, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; if the money or personal property so embezzled be of the value of more than fifty (50) dollars, such person shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than ten (10) years or by a fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000) dollars.

‘In any prosecution under this section, the failure, neglect or refusal of such agent, servant, employe, trustee, bailee or custodian to pay, deliver, or refund to his principal such money or property entrusted to his care upon demand shall be prima facie proof of intent to embezzle.’

Field was the resident manager of the Grand Rapids office of Rudolph Schmittdiel, Inc., a Detroit securities firm. The people's chief witness was Miss Ida M. Barrett, who had lived in Grand Rapids about 40 years. Her accumulated savings were invested in various stocks and bonds which she kept in a safety deposit box. She met Field in 1936 and bought some Michigan Brewery Company stock from him. Later she brought her securities from her safety deposit box to the Schmittdiel office, where they were listed by Field and a copy of the inventory was given to Miss Barrett. Before leaving Grand Rapids for the winter, Miss Barrett gave Field a key to the deposit box and arranged that he might have access thereto, so she claimed, for the purpose of exchanging certain stock and clipping the interest coupons on three bonds. Field claimed the arrangement was for the purpose of permitting him to generally deal with securities belonging to Miss Barrett and trade in the market for her benefit with the proceeds. In any event, this arrangement later resulted in the charge by Miss Barrett that Field had embezzled the property described in the criminal information, namely, $2691 in cash and one bond of the Southern California Edison Company of the value of $1075; one Telephone bond and share of the value of $840, and one certificate of the Atlas Corporation of the value of $1,700, all of the value of $6,306.

Although defendant introduced in evidence on cross-examination of Miss Barrett certain letters from her to Field which show that the dealings were between the parties individually, he claimed that the transactions were solely between Miss Barrett and Schmittdiel, Inc., his employer. Field, testifying in his own behalf, was unable, however, to account for the missing cash and securities other than by his losses in trading in the market for Miss Barrett. He admitted that he lied when he said he did not know of the whereabouts of Lois Menish, one of his employes in the Schmittdiel office, in whose name a bank account was maintained for certain funds including those belonging to Miss Barrett and used by Field for the purpose of trading in securities. This employe, testifying as a rebuttal witness for the People, said she never made any report to Schmittdiel, Inc., regarding the bank account, and that Field gave her money to deposit and instructed her regarding withdrawals and no one else had any connection with the account. There was only a small balance in this account when the Schmittdiel office in Grand Rapids was closed, after Field's arrest.

Appellant complains of the court's charge to the jury and argues that a ‘reasonable explanation of the entire transactions'...