State v. Coster
| Decision Date | 05 May 1913 |
| Citation | 156 S.W. 773,170 Mo. App. 539 |
| Parties | STATE v. COSTER. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Buchanan County; Thos. F. Ryan, Judge.
B. Coster was convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, and he appeals. Reversed.
Thompson, Griswold & Thompson, of St. Joseph, for appellant. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., and C. C. Ferrell, Pros. Atty., of St. Joseph, for the State.
Defendant was charged and convicted of receiving stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. It appears that a wholesale grocery company had in its employ one Ashlock, whose duty it was to deliver and check out goods belonging to the company which had been sold. The company also had in its employ a transfer company, one of whose wagons was driven by one Nelson. It was the duty of Ashlock to deliver and check out to the transfer wagons goods for delivery, and in the instances upon which the indictment was founded Ashlock delivered goods to Nelson, and he converted them to his own use by selling to purchasers and dividing the proceeds with Ashlock. In this state of case the offense was embezzlement and not larceny.
The principals being guilty of embezzlement, the accessory would not be guilty of larceny. State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1, 105 S. W. 645, 123 Am. St. Rep. 367, 13 Ann. Cas. 878; State v. Fink, 186 Mo. 50, 84 S. W. 921.
The judgment should be reversed and cause remanded. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harrison
...to support the verdict. State v. Fuller, 286 S.W. 45, 306 Mo. 484; State v. Bunton, 285 S.W. 97, 47 A. L. R. 783; State v. Coster, 170 Mo.App. 539, 156 S.W. 773; Fitch v. Florida, 135 Fla. 361, 125 A. L. R. State v. Smith, 250 Mo. 350, 157 S.W. 319; State v. Kennedy, 239 S.W. 869; State v. ......
-
State v. Harrison
...evidence to support the verdict. State v. Fuller, 286 S.W. 45, 306 Mo. 484; State v. Bunton, 285 S.W. 97, 47 A.L.R. 783; State v. Coster, 170 Mo. App. 539, 156 S.W. 773; Fitch v. Florida, 135 Fla. 361, 125 A.L.R. 361; State v. Smith, 250 Mo. 350, 157 S.W. 319; State v. Kennedy, 239 S.W. 869......
-
State v. Bright
... ... If defendant is correct in saying that Lakes embezzled the dresses, then his contention is supported by substantial authority. State v. Fink, 186 Mo. 50, 84 S.W. 921; State v. Gennusa, 258 Mo. 273, 167 S.W. 439; State v. George, 263 Mo. 686, 173 S.W. 1077; State v. Coster, 170 Mo.App. 539, 156 S.W. 773, 157 S.W. 85. These cases unequivocally hold that where the evidence shows the first taker was guilty of embezzlement a conviction of receiving stolen goods must be reversed. If, however, the original taker, Lakes, had the felonious intent and purpose of converting ... ...
-
State v. Gennusa
...v. Fink, 186 Mo. 50, 84 S. W. 921; State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1, 105 S. W. 645, 128 Am. St. Rep. 367, 13 Ann. Cas. 878; and State v. Coster, 170 Mo. App. 539, 156 S. W. 773, 157 S. W. 85. This issue seems to be so well settled by the foregoing decisions that any extended discussion of the same......