State v. Cornhauser
| Decision Date | 12 March 1889 |
| Citation | 74 Wis. 42,41 N.W. 959 |
| Parties | STATE v. CORNHAUSER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case reported from municipal court of Milwaukee.
L. K. Luse, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottum & Vilas, for defendant.
This case is reported to this court by the judge of the municipal court of Milwaukee county for our decision of certain questions submitted. We shall not consider these questions in their numerical order.
The second question submitted is this: Upon the information in this action, and under section 4667, Rev. St., was the admission of evidence, against the defendant's objection, tending to prove the collection by him on February 2, 1888, of the sum of $130, and the failure by him to account for said sum when in Milwaukee on February, 25, 1888, competent and proper under the allegations of the information, which charged the defendant with the embezzlement of $1,600 on the 16th day of May, 1888? The section of the statute referred to in the question provides that “in any prosecution for the offense of embezzling the money, banknotes,checks, drafts, bills of exchange, or other security for money of any person by a clerk, agent, or servant of such person, it shall be sufficient to allege generally in the indictment or information an embezzlement of money to a certain amount, without specifying any particulars of such embezzlement, and on the trial evidence may be given of any such embezzlement committed within six months next after the time stated in the indictment or information; and it shall be sufficient to maintain the charge in the indictment or information, and shall not be deemed a variance, if it shall be proved that any money, bank-note, check, draft, bill of exchange, or other security for money of such person, of whatever amount, was fraudulently embezzled by such clerk, agent, or servant within the said period of six months.” It is evident that the evidence admitted went to prove an act of embezzlement prior to the time charged in the information. The question is, could such an offense be proven to support the information? It is claimed on the part of the defendant that it could not be, and that proof of any act of embezzlement anterior to the 16th day of May, 1888, was inadmissible. We are inclined to adopt this view. This is a statutory offense, and while it is not necessary to show that the precise amount of money charged in the information was fraudulently appropriated with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...of acts of embezzlement before the time stated in the indictment. People v. Donald, 48 Mich. 491, 493, 12 N. W. 669; State v. Cornhauser, 74 Wis. 42, 44, 41 N. W. 959. Such seems to be the view in State v. Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 234, 68 N. W. 11, as to the substantive offense, although such ......
-
Anderson v. State
...of embezzlement was committed prior to the date charged and will not support a conviction of embezzlement on that date. State v. Cornhauser, 74 Wis. 42, 41 N.W. 959, is cited in support of this contention. It was there held that as section 4667, R.S.1878, permitted evidence of transactions ......
-
State v. Juneau
...of law are to be reported, under the statute, or considered by this court. State v. Gross, 62 Wis. 41, 21 N. W. 802;State v. Cornhauser, 74 Wis. 42, 41 N. W. 959. The court, being satisfied of the competency of the witness, did not err in permitting her to testify in the case. 2. Ordinarily......
-
State v. Heiden
...payment. Hence it is impossible to answer that the refusal of said eighth request was error or to know that it was not. State v. Cornhauser, 74 Wis. 42, 45, 41 N. W. 959;State v. Knight, 118 Wis. 473, 95 N. W. 390. The sixth question is whether the court should grant defendant's motion for ......