Reeves v. State

• Decision Date: 09 May 1892
• Citation: 11 So. 158,95 Ala. 31
• Parties: REEVES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 158

95 Ala. 31

REEVES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 9, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Bullock county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

William N. Reeves was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant in this case was indicted for embezzlement. As stated in the opinion, the indictment contained four counts. The state elected to proceed on the second count, and the defendant was tried thereon. This count was in the following language: "The grand jury of said county further charge that, before the finding of this indictment, William N Reeves, an officer and president of the John McNab Bank, a bank incorporated under the laws of this state, embezzled, or fraudulently converted to his own use, money to about the amount of five hundred and fifty-eight and 34-100 dollars which was in the possession of said bank, or deposited therein, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The court overruled defendant's demurrer to this count of the indictment. There was much testimony introduced on the trial, and many exceptions reserved to the rulings of the lower court thereon. The opinion of this court renders it unnecessary to notice these exceptions seriatim. The facts pertaining thereto are sufficiently stated in the opinion, as are also stated all the other facts which are necessary to the understanding of the decision of this court.

The defendant requested the following charges in writing, and separately excepted to the refusal of the court to give each charge as asked: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that, at the time the defendant received the $558.34 from the bank, he had no intent to injure or defraud the bank, then they will find the defendant not guilty; and if from all the evidence the jury have a reasonable doubt of the fact that the defendant, at the time he received the money, had the intent to embezzle the same or fraudulently convert the same to his own use, then they must acquit the defendant." (2) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that, at the time the defendant received the $558.34 from the bank, he received it as a loan from the bank, to be repaid out of the proceeds of the crop to be grown on the plantation in Russell county Ala., and that the defendant had good reason to believe, and did believe, that said sum, and all other sums, advanced to said defendant during the year, for use of said plantation by said bank, would be repaid to said bank from said crops, and that the defendant had, at the time the several sums were received by him from the bank, no intent to embezzle the same, or fraudulently convert the same to his own use, then your verdict will be not guilty." (3) "If the jury, upon consideration of all the evidence in this case, can reasonably conclude that, at the time the defendant received the $558.34 from the bank, he had no intent of embezzling the same, or fraudulently converting to his own use, then it is your duty to acquit the defendant." (4) "When a good or bad motive for doing an act can be imputed to the person doing the act, the law says that the good motive must be imputed, if the same can be done from the evidence, reasonably to the satisfaction of the jury; and, before the jury can say in this case that the defendant is guilty, they must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that at the time the defendant received the money from the bank he intended to embezzle the same, or fraudulently convert it to his own use; and if they have a reasonable doubt, growing out of the evidence, that the defendant at the time intended to embezzle the same, or fraudulently convert it to his own use, they must find the defendant not guilty." (5) "The law makes all money put in the John McNab Bank, on general deposit, the absolute property of said bank, and the law authorizes and empowers the said bank to use said money as its own in any lawful way; and if the jury believe from the evidence in the case that the proper authorities or officers of said bank consented and agreed to lend said sum of five hundred and fifty-eight dollars and thirty-four cents, alleged to have been embezzled, in the usual way and manner of doing business by said bank, they must find the defendant not guilty." (6) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that at the time the defendant discounted the draft for $7,480, with the bank, that the same was so discounted with the full knowledge and consent of the officers and managers of the affairs of said bank, and by authority and consent of a majority of the board of directors of said bank; and that defendant paid to said bank the interest or discount on said draft in the usual and customary way; and that said money arising from the discount of said draft was used bona fide by said defendant in defraying the expenses of running the Russell county plantation for the year 1890, and that the cotton crops to be grown on said plantation during said year were to be used by said defendant in repaying said amount to said bank; and the defendant had good reason to believe, and did believe, that said cotton crops to be raised on said plantation during said year would be sufficient to repay said amount; and that by reason of the failure of said cotton crop on said plantation, during said year, the defendant could not repay the said amount to said bank in full; and that at the time said draft was discounted defendant had no intent to embezzle the same, or fraudulently convert it to his own use,-then you must acquit the defendant." (7) "If the jury believe from the evidence in the case that the $558.34 was loaned by the bank to W. N. and J. H. Reeves in good faith, and in the regular course of business, then they must acquit the defendant." (8) "Although the jury may believe from the evidence that the affairs of the John McNab Bank may not have been managed with the highest degree of care and skill, yet if they believe from the evidence that the $558.34 was loaned by the bank to W. N. and J. H. Reeves in good faith, and in the usual and customary way, then the jury must acquit the defendant." (9) "Before the jury can convict the defendant in this case they must believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the money paid by the bank on the check of $558.34 was paid by the bank out of money which was placed in and held by the bank as a special or specific deposit." (10) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that the check for $558.34 on the bank was paid out of money held by the bank on general deposit, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (11) "If the check for $558.34 was drawn by the defendant on said bank, and the money on the same was paid by said bank by and with the knowledge and consent of the officers and managers of the affairs of the bank, and there was no fraud practiced by the defendant in obtaining said money, then the jury will find the defendant not guilty." (13) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the check for $558.34 drawn by the defendant on the 23d day of June, 1890, was known to and authorized by the other ministerial officers of the bank, then they must find the defendant not guilty."

There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary for three years.

G. L. Comer, Henry R. Shorter, and Watts & Son, for appellant.

William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

THORINGTON J.

Appellant was indicted in the county of Barbour, under section 3796 of the Code, which declares that "any officer, agent, clerk, or servant of any bank incorporated under any law of this state, who embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, or fraudulently secretes with intent to convert to his own use, any money, property, or effects belonging to, or in the possession of, such bank, or deposited therein, must be punished, on conviction, as if he had stolen it." The indictment contained four counts, but the state elected to proceed on the second count alone, which charges the defendant, as an officer and president of the John McNab Bank, a corporation under the laws of Alabama, with having embezzled or fraudulently converted to his own use money to about the amount of $558.34, "which was in the possession of said bank, or deposited therein, against the peace," etc. On defendant's application there was a change of venue to the county of Bullock; and, on trial there, he was convicted, and now brings the case to this court by appeal. The statute above quoted first appeared in the laws of this state in the Code of 1852, but there it embraced in its terms private bankers, commission merchants, factors, brokers, attorneys, and other agents. It was brought forward into the Revised Code of 1867, in the language we now find it in the Code of 1886, having been successively carried forward from the Revised Code into the Code of 1876, and from that into the present Code. Counsel have cited no case construing the provisions of this statute, nor have we been able to discover any, after careful investigation.

An analysis of the statute shows that, in order to constitute an offense against its provisions, there must exist the following concurring facts: (1) The party accused must be an officer, agent, clerk, or servant of a bank incorporated under the laws of this state. (2) The money, property, or effects must have belonged to, or been in the possession of, or been deposited in, such bank. (3) The money, property, or effects must have been embezzled by the accused, or fraudulently converted to his own use, or secreted by him with intent to convert to his own use. For indictments under this and other statutes, the Code prescribes forms, and declares that they shall, in all cases in which they are applicable, be...