People v. Meadows

• Decision Date: 07 June 1910
• Citation: 199 N.Y. 1,92 N.E. 128
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MEADOWS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

199 N.Y. 1

92 N.E. 128

PEOPLE

v.MEADOWS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Harold G. Meadows was convicted of grand larceny in the first degree, and from a judgment of the Appellate Division (136 App. Div. 226,121 N. Y. Supp. 17) affirming the conviction, he appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph G. Dudley, for appellant.

Wesley C. Dudley, for the People.

GRAY, J.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The charge in the indictment, in substance, was that on the 22d day of May, 1908, at the city of Buffalo, the defendant, as the servant, bailee, or agent of one William E. Silverthorne, had in his possession and custody $72,012.50, the property of said Silverthorne, and that he, thereafter, with the intent to deprive and defraud the said Silverthorne of the said moneys, did feloniously steal the same. Upon being brought to trial, the defendant was found guilty by the jury, and the judgment of conviction has been affirmed at the Appellate Division. 136 App. Div. 226,121 N. Y. Supp. 17. The indictment was found under subdivision 2 of section 528 of the Penal Code, which includes, under the offense of larceny, the offense formerly known as embezzlement. That form of larceny required that the people to support a conviction should establish in this case that the moneys were delivered to the defendant as the bailee or agent of their owner and that he had intentionally appropriated the same to his own use, or to that of any other person than the owner.

The evidence upon the trial was such as to justify the verdict rendered by the jurors, and by that verdict the following facts must be deemed to have been established. The defendant was a member of the firm of Meadows, Williams & Co., a firm engaged in a general brokerage business in the city of Buffalo, and at the time of the transaction in question was the active member in charge of the business. The complainant, Silverthorne, had been a customer of the office, and, upon several occasions, had made investment purchases of securities. On May 20, 1908, he came to the office and ordered the defendant to purchase 700 shares of the preferred stock of the United States Steel Corporation, at the price of 102 3/4. He told the defendant that he was buying for investment, and that he wished the stock to be placed in his, Silverthorne's, name. He knew that the stock was to be purchased on the New York market. Defendant's correspondents in that city were Post & Flagg and a private wire connected the two offices; but the relation between the two firms was no other than that of a correspondence for the doing of business for the one, or the other, as the case might be. The quotations, upon which Silverthorne gave his order, were procured from Post & Flagg, and they were given the order by the defendant to buy the stock. The next day the defendant sent Silverthorne a ‘memorandum,’ to the effect that his firm had ‘bought 700 U. S. Steel pfd. at 102 3/4’ and showing the cost, with commissions, to be the sum of $72,012.50. Accompanying the memorandum was a letter from the firm, which, after stating the purchase, further stated as follows: ‘This account received by telegraph from New York. Names of parties from whom purchase was made will be given if desired as soon as advices are received by mail.’ The next day, upon receiving this letter and memorandum of account, Silverthorne mailed to the defendant his check for the $72,012.50, the receipt of which the defendant acknowledged by the return of the memorandum receipted. This check was deposited to the general account of the firm in their bank. Upon occasions, during the next few days, when Silverthorne called to know if his stock had arrived, he was told, in explanation of its nonarrival, that the delay was caused through the transfer office being closed. Silverthorne, being then on the eve of his departure for Europe, requested the defendant, as the stock was to be in his name, to keep it for him until his return, which the defendant agreed to do. When Silverthorne's check was received, the firm's bank account showed a credit of only $1,500, and the same day, and on days following, the defendant drew upon it, as so increased by the funds received from Silverthorne in payment of the demands of creditors; individual as well as firm. Payment was never made by defendant to Post & Flagg for the stock. No payment was ever, specifically, made upon account of its purchase, and the shares of stock were never taken up from Post & Flagg. The course of dealings between that firm and the defendant's appears to have been for the former concern, upon executing orders given by the latter, to carry all securities upon marginal account, and these 700 shares of stock were bought, and were being carried, for the defendant's firm in that way. They knew no one in the transactions but defendant's firm, which, alone, was their customer. Payments were made to Post & Flagg subsequently to the execution of Silverthorne's order, to which largely the proceeds of Silverthorne's check contributed; but they were made upon the general marginal account, which the New York firm was carrying. Within three months of this transaction, the members of defendant's firm were adjudged bankrupts,with liabilities very greatly in excess of their assets, and that was the situation which Silverthorne found upon returning from Europe in September. Neither defendant's firm, nor the trustee in bankruptcy, had received the shares of stock, for the purchase of which Silverthorne had furnished the former the moneys in question.

It seems to me that this was as plain a case, as could be imagined, of embezzlement within the statutory definition of that form of larceny. The defendant's firm in this transaction with Silverthorne acted as his agent, and, as such, their duty was to use the money intrusted to them in payment for the stock purchased on his order. They had no discretionary power over the fund whatever. Silverthorne had no general account with them. Brokers...