State v. Broderick
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 7 Mo.App. 19 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. MARTIN BRODERICK, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1879 |
1. The statutory provision that “if any carrier or other bailee shall embezzle or convert to his own use * * * any money, property, * * * which shall have been delivered to him or shall have come to his possession or under his care as such bailee, * * * he shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of larceny,” is not confined to carriers.
2. Under the statute the bailee is properly found guilty of embezzlement; and is then adjudged guilty of larceny and punished accordingly.
APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Affirmed.
J. G. LODGE and F. D. TURNER, for appellant.
LEWIS B. BEACH, for respondent.
The appellant was indicted, with others, for grand larceny, and charged with having stolen three mules, the property of one Monegan. The evidence showed that the appellant had the property in his possession as bailee of the owner, and, together with instructions as to larceny, the following instruction was given: “If, from the evidence, the jury and that the defendant Broderick was the bailee of the witness Monegan, and that as such bailee the mules described in the indictment, and the property of said Monegan, were in his, Broderick's possession and under his care, and that he, Broderick, did feloniously embezzle or convert to his own use said mules, or any of them, of the value of twenty dollars or more, with the intent to deprive Monegan of his said property, they should find him guilty of embezzlement, and assess his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years.”
The jury retired to deliberate, and afterwards returned into court the following verdict: The appellant was accordingly sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.
The evidence supports the instruction thus given, and shows the appellant to have been guilty of embezzlement; and under the statutes of this State a defendant may be found guilty of embezzlement under an indictment for grand larceny. Wag. Stats. 514, sect. 15. It is, however, contended that the provision of the statute under which this conviction for embezzlement was had has no application to the case, Sect. 37, p. 469, of Wagner's statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norberg v. Montgomery, 38538
...321; Cades v. Mosberger Lbr. Co., 291 S.W. 178; Mangelsdorf v. Penn. Fire Ins. Co., 224 Mo.App. 265, 26 S.W.2d 818; State v. Broderick, 7 Mo.App. 19; State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 321 Mo. 1126, 14 S.W.2d 990; State ex rel. School District v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516; State ex rel. Major v. Ryan, ......
-
Ex Parte Lingenfelter
...Ill. 40, 49 N. E. 993; Bills v. Putnam, 64 N. H. 554, 15 Atl. 138; Benton v. Benton, 63 N. H. 289, 56 Am. Rep. 512; State v. Broderick, 7 Mo. App. 19; Williams v. Williams, 18 Tenn. 20; State v. Williams, 2 Strob. (S. C.) 474; Com. v. Rice, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 253; State v. Schuchman, 133 Mo. 1......
-
Bankers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank
...there can be no doubt; but it is never used to render words meaningless or to defeat a plainly expressed intent. See State v. Broderick, 7 Mo.App. 19. For instance, to interpret the statute as if it read "To insure property against loss or damage by fire or other loss or damage by fire" wou......
-
Nordberg v. Montgomery, 38538.
...Cades v. Mosberger Lbr. Co., 291 S.W. 178; Mangelsdorf v. Penn. Fire Ins. Co., 224 Mo. App. 265, 26 S.W. (2d) 818; State v. Broderick, 7 Mo. App. 19; State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 321 Mo. 1126, 14 S.W. (2d) 990; State ex rel. School District v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516; State ex rel. Major v. Rya......