State v. Betz
Decision Date | 10 December 1907 |
Citation | 207 Mo. 589,106 S.W. 64 |
Parties | STATE v. BETZ. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gentry County; William C. Ellison, Judge.
Jacob L. Betz was convicted of embezzlement as a bailee, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. W. Peery, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the defendant in the circuit court of Gentry county for embezzlement as a bailee, under section 1914, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1306]. The indictment contained three counts; the first charging embezzlement under said section, being the one upon which defendant was convicted, and the second also attempting to charge embezzlement under both sections 1912 and 1914 [pages 1304, 1306]; and the third count charging grand larceny. The second count was, upon motion quashed, and after the trial was entered into a nolle prosequi was entered as to both the second and third counts, and the cause was submitted to the jury on the first count alone.
The evidence showed that defendant was a retail jewelry merchant in the city of Stanberry, in said county, and had been dealing with and buying jewelry and diamonds from the C. B. Norton Jewelry Company, of Kansas City, for six or seven years. On January 4, 1905, defendant wrote to this company the following letter or order:
"J. L. Betz, Jeweler and Optician "Stanberry, Mo. 1-4-05 "C. B. Norton Jewelry Co., Kansas City Mo.—Dear Sir: Please send me by exp. on memo. one or two nice diamonds, 1 to 1¼ kt and oblige, Yours very truly, "J. L. Betz."
In response to said order the company sent to defendant by express the four diamonds described in the indictment, together with the following bill:
Particular attention ordering. paid to filling orders.
Upon cross-examination the president of the company testified as follows:
The defendant admitted upon the trial that he appropriated the goods mentioned in Exhibit No. 1 and described in the indictment to his own use. Shortly after receiving the diamonds, he sold stock of jewelry in Stanberry, and went to Lincoln, Neb. The diamonds in question were pawned by him in that city, together with other diamonds of the value of $1,500 or $1,800. The defendant was arrested in Lincoln, and state's witnesses, Norton and Solon, visited him in jail at that city, and had a conversation with him. They asked defendant why he had done that way, and he replied:
At the close of the state's case, the defendant asked a peremptory instruction directing the jury to acquit the defendant, which was refused, and exceptions duly saved. The defendant offered no evidence, and made five requests to the court for instructions on certain propositions, the substance which was that, under the law and the evidence, the transaction between the C. B. Norton Jewelry Company and the defendant was a conditional sale or "sale or return" and not a bailment, and that defendant could not therefore be convicted as a bailee under section 1914 (page 1306). These requests were refused by the court, and the defendant excepted. Thereupon the court instructed the jury, in substance, that under the letter or order and bill hereinbefore set out the defendant became a bailee of the company "as to all but two of said diamonds," and if he converted them he was guilty under the first count of the indictment. The defendant excepted to each of the instructions given by the court, because the court had failed to instruct on all questions of law arising in the case necessary for the information of the jury in making up their verdict. Under the instructions the jury found the defendant guilty of embezzlement as a bailee under the first count of the indictment, and assessed his punishment at two years'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. J. R. Watkins Co
...return goods to the company does not affect the character of the transaction. Koch Veg. Tea Co. v. Malone (Tex.), 163 S.W. 663; State v. Betz (Mo.), 106 S.W. 64; Sinnett v. R. Watkins Co. (Ky.), 282 S.W. 769; Equitable Credit Co., Inc. v. Rogers (Ark.), 299 S.W. 747. The designation of the ......
-
Lee v. State
...Cyc. p. 254; also pages 289, 290, of the same volume; Bank v. Kraus, 62 Neb. 77, 86 N. W. 906; Hunt v. Wyman, 100 Mass. 198; State v. Betz, 207 Mo. 589, 106 S. W. 64. From the opinion in the last-named case appellant in his brief quotes as "The general proposition that a delivery of an arti......
-
State v. Bagley
...78 S.W.2d 104; State v. Vigus, 66 S.W.2d 854. (2) The court did not err in overruling the demurrer at the close of the entire case. State v. Betz, 207 Mo. 589; State Gould, 46 S.W.2d 886; State v. Stevens, 220 S.W. 844. (3) The court did not err as to its ruling on the opening statement of ......
-
State v. Ruznak
...person who delivered it, or otherwise dealt with according to his directions, or kept until he reclaims it, as the case may be." In State v. Betz, 207 Mo. 589, loc. cit. 599, 106 S. W. 66, the court adopts Judge Story's definition of bailment, as follows: "The delivery of a thing in trust f......