State v. Crosswhite
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 130 Mo. 358,32 S.W. 991 |
| Parties | STATE v. CROSSWHITE. |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1895 |
v.
CROSSWHITE.
ERROR — WAIVER — EMBEZZLEMENT BY PARTNER — COMMISSION MERCHANTS — INDICTMENT — SUFFICIENCY — ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION.
1. Error in admitting evidence of the embezzlement of the money arising from the sale of merchandise, on a trial for embezzlement of the merchandise, cannot be considered on appeal, where defendant failed to specifically object thereto.
2. It is no defense to a prosecution for the embezzlement of goods consigned on commission that defendant paid over the money arising on a sale thereof to his partner.
3. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 3551, making it criminal for any carrier, bailee, or other person to embezzle goods, a merchant to whom was consigned car loads of potatoes to be sold on commission is liable for the embezzlement thereof.
4. An indictment under Rev. St. 1889, § 3551, for the embezzlement of goods consigned on commission, need not allege by whom the goods were delivered to defendant.
5. It was error to charge that, if defendant sold the goods with the intent to appropriate the proceeds thereof, he was guilty, where the prosecution was for the embezzlement of the goods, not the proceeds.
Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; John W. Wofford, Judge.
Robert H. Crosswhite was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals. Reversed.
J. B. Hammer, for appellant. R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., Morton Jourdan, and W. T. Jamison, for respondent.
BURGESS, J.
At the April term, 1895, of the criminal court of Jackson county, Mo., defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement,
and his punishment fixed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From the judgment and sentence he appealed. There were six counts in the indictment, but after the evidence was all in the court withdrew the first five, and the conviction was under the sixth count, which, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows: "And the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present that on the 17th day of December, A. D. 1894, at said Jackson county, state aforesaid, the said Robert H. Crosswhite was a commission merchant and agent, and as such a member of the firm of Crosswhite & Co., composed of him, the said Robert H. Crosswhite, and one J. O. R. Campbell, and he, the said Robert H. Crosswhite, as such commission merchant and agent, and as such member of said firm, then and there became the consignee and bailee of one David H. Biethan, in possession of seven car loads of potatoes, of the value of five hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the property of said David H. Biethan, and which potatoes then and there came into the possession and care of said Robert H. Crosswhite as such commission merchant, and as the said consignee and bailee of said David H. Biethan, and he, the said Robert H. Crosswhite, then and there the said seven car loads of potatoes unlawfully and feloniously did embezzle and convert to his own use; and so the jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do say that the said Robert H. Crosswhite, the said seven car loads of potatoes in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." The salient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Stevens
...for respondent. (1) The second count is in a form substantially approved by this court. State v. Betz, 207 Mo. 589; State v. Crosswhite, 130 Mo. 358; Kelly's Crim. Law & Prac. (3 Ed.), sec. 677; State v. Castleton, 255 Mo. 201. (2) The State was permitted to show over the objection and exce......
-
State v. Colson, 30177
...from each fund constituted separate and distinct offenses. State v. Laughlin, 180 Mo. 342, 358; 16 C. J. 586; State v. Crosswhite, 130 Mo. 358; State v. Noland, 111 Mo. 504. (5) The court in reading law to the jury and his remarks thereon, prejudiced the defendant with the jury. 16 C. J. 82......
-
State v. Colson, 30177.
...from each fund constituted separate and distinct offenses. State v. Laughlin, 180 Mo. 342, 358; 16 C.J. 586; State v. Crosswhite, 130 Mo. 358; State v. Noland, 111 Mo. 504. (5) The court in reading law to the jury and his remarks thereon, prejudiced the defendant with the jury. 16 C.J. 827.......
-
State v. Stevens, 21884.
...and cause of the accusation. It follows with exactness as to material averments the form approved in State v. Crosswhite, 130 Mo. 368, 32 S. W. 991, 51 Am. St. Rep. 571, and, free from the defects noted in the Burgess Case, supra, it complies with the, requirements held therein to be necess......