State v. Adams

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtMacfarlane
Citation108 Mo. 208,18 S.W. 1000
Decision Date02 February 1892
PartiesSTATE v. ADAMS.
18 S.W. 1000
108 Mo. 208
STATE
v.
ADAMS.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
February 2, 1892.

EMBEZZLEMENT — INDICTMENT — EVIDENCE — INSTRUCTIONS — INTENT — CROSS-EXAMINATION.

1. An indictment under Rev. St. § 3549, for embezzling a piano, is sufficient if it substantially follows the language of the statute.

2. The concluding words of the indictment, that defendant did "feloniously steal, take, and carry away" the piano, merely state conclusions, and do not render the indictment bad for duplicity.

3. Where it appears that defendant was the prosecuting witness' agent for the sale of pianos and organs, and that their transactions extended over several years, a statement of accounts rendered by the prosecuting witness to defendant, which shows that defendant had the piano in question on hand at a certain date, is properly admitted in evidence after it was first introduced in part by defendant during the cross-examination of the prosecuting witness.

4. Under such circumstances, copies of letters written by the prosecuting witness to defendant, requesting him to make a settlement and account for the pianos, are admissible, especially where defendant does not deny the sale of the piano and the appropriation of the proceeds, but claims that he did so for the purpose of procuring a settlement, and of retaining in his hands money enough to pay the balance due himself.

5. An instruction that if defendant, with intent to embezzle the piano, sold it, and, to further carry out such purpose, took a note in his own name, and sold the note, he would be guilty, is correct.

6. A provision in the contract under which defendant handled and sold the pianos, that pianos remaining longer than a certain time should be returned, or defendant would pay interest thereafter, does not charge defendant's rights as to pianos remaining longer than the period specified; he was still only an agent to sell them.

7. Where defendant in his cross-examination volunteers the statement that he went away, it is proper to allow him to be asked when he went away.

Appeal from circuit court, Adair county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

W. A. Adams was indicted and convicted for embezzling a piano, the property of one James A. Guest, and appeals. Affirmed.

A. D. Risdon and F. M. Harrington, for appellant. John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MACFARLANE, J.


Defendant was indicted under section 3551, Rev. St., for the embezzlement of one piano, of the value of $300, the property of James A. Guest. Upon a trial he was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. From this sentence, defendant appealed to this court. The evidence shows that James A. Guest was a wholesale dealer in pianos and organs at Burlington, Iowa, and that defendant was a retail dealer in musical instruments at Kirksville, Adair county, Mo. That prior to September, 1885, defendant had acted as agent for Guest in the sale of pianos and organs. On the 7th day of September, 1885, these parties entered into a written agreement, by which defendant undertook to act as agent for Guest in the sale of these instruments in Kirksville, and such other territory as Guest might thereafter designate. Among the terms and conditions upon which this agency was made and accepted, defendant agreed to take the instruments on consignment, and sell them, and promptly remit proceeds, whether in notes or money, for which he was to receive a commission. Under this agreement the business was conducted until about April, 1888, when it was terminated by Guest. On the 27th of June, 1887, one style S, Star piano, No. 5758, was consigned to defendant at Kirksville for sale under the terms of the agency. On the 14th of December, 1887, defendant sold this piano to one Abner Russell, of Kirksville, for $300, and in payment therefor Russell conveyed to him some real estate for the consideration of $100, and gave him his note for $200, payable in three months. This note defendant sold and assigned in a few days thereafter, and received the proceeds. This transaction was not reported to Guest, nor did defendant account to him for the piano or the proceeds of the sale. The evidence tended to prove that defendant endeavored to conceal this transaction from Guest, and made false statements in regard to what disposition had been made of this piano. The defense was that, in the transaction between the parties, there were open, unadjusted accounts about which they differed, and that defendant retained the proceeds of the sale of this piano for the purpose only of procuring a settlement of the accounts, and of retaining in his hands money enough to settle balances he claimed to be due him. To make out this defense defendant was permitted to introduce testimony covering all the transactions of the parties while the agency continued, including statements of accounts made by them. Any other facts will be stated in connection with the questions discussed. The sufficiency of the indictment is challenged on two grounds: First. That it does not set forth with sufficient precision the capacity in which defendant acted, — whether as agent or collector. Second. It improperly joins in one count two distinct offenses, — embezzlement and larceny.

1. The indictment charges that defendant, "being then and there agent and collector of a certain private person, to-wit, one James A. Guest, and the said W. A. Adams being then and there not a person under the age of sixteen years, did then and there, by virtue of his employment as agent and collector of the said James A. Guest, have, receive, and take into his

18 S.W. 1001

possession and under his care certain personal property, to-wit, a style S, Star piano, No. 5758, of the value of three hundred dollars, and of the property belonging to the said James A. Guest; and the said W. A. Adams the said piano then and there feloniously did embezzle and fraudulently convert to his own use, without the assent of his employer, the said James A. Guest, the owner of said piano; and the said W. A. Adams, the said piano, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away, — against the peace and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Crosby v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 21 Octubre 1925
    ...the part of the defendant some "felonious, fraudulent, wrongful, or corrupt" intent to convert, was therefore not error. State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 S.W. 1000. The charge given by the court that the withholding or conversion must have been "knowingly and unlawfully" [90 Fla. 393] done, ......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1899
    ...it is the right of the party against whom he testifies to cross-examine him in detail concerning the omitted portion. (State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 S.W. 1000; Murray v. Great Western Ins. Co., 72 Hun, 282, 25 N.Y.S. 414; Ah Doon v. Smith, 25 Or. 89, 34 P. 1093; Sayres v. Allen, 25 Or. 21......
  • State v. Watkins, No. 33988.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Octubre 1935
    ...Mason, 218 U.S. 517; Clark v. State, 61 Tex. Crim. Rep. 539, 135 S.W. 575; Jackson v. State, 2 Ala. App. 226, 57 So. 110; State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208; Miller v. State, 16 Neb. 179, 20 N.W. 253; State v. Clayton, 15 Pac. (2d) 1057; Sterritt v. State, 50 N.J. 475, 14 Atl. 746; People v. Hurst......
  • Ritter v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 14 Junio 1902
    ...Sand. & H. Dig., § 1712; 37 Ia. 407; 3 Ct. of Cl. 257; 54 Ark. 611; 76 Ga. 557. The indictment charged a public offense, and was good. 108 Mo. 208; 37 Ia. 404; 66 Cal. 344, 136 Ind. 217; 29 Ark. 216; 98 Mo. 482; 19 S.W. 717. Copies of the books of the Laclede Bank were admissable. Greenl. E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Crosby v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 21 Octubre 1925
    ...the part of the defendant some "felonious, fraudulent, wrongful, or corrupt" intent to convert, was therefore not error. State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 S.W. 1000. The charge given by the court that the withholding or conversion must have been "knowingly and unlawfully" [90 Fla. 393] done, ......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1899
    ...it is the right of the party against whom he testifies to cross-examine him in detail concerning the omitted portion. (State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 S.W. 1000; Murray v. Great Western Ins. Co., 72 Hun, 282, 25 N.Y.S. 414; Ah Doon v. Smith, 25 Or. 89, 34 P. 1093; Sayres v. Allen, 25 Or. 21......
  • State v. Watkins, No. 33988.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Octubre 1935
    ...Mason, 218 U.S. 517; Clark v. State, 61 Tex. Crim. Rep. 539, 135 S.W. 575; Jackson v. State, 2 Ala. App. 226, 57 So. 110; State v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208; Miller v. State, 16 Neb. 179, 20 N.W. 253; State v. Clayton, 15 Pac. (2d) 1057; Sterritt v. State, 50 N.J. 475, 14 Atl. 746; People v. Hurst......
  • Ritter v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 14 Junio 1902
    ...Sand. & H. Dig., § 1712; 37 Ia. 407; 3 Ct. of Cl. 257; 54 Ark. 611; 76 Ga. 557. The indictment charged a public offense, and was good. 108 Mo. 208; 37 Ia. 404; 66 Cal. 344, 136 Ind. 217; 29 Ark. 216; 98 Mo. 482; 19 S.W. 717. Copies of the books of the Laclede Bank were admissable. Greenl. E......
  • 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