State v. D. F. Workman.
|10 October 1922
|91 W.Va. 771
|State v. D. F. Workman.
|West Virginia Supreme Court
1. Indictment and Information One Under Common Law In-
dictment for Larceny May be Convicted on Evidence Showing Embezzlement.
Under section 19, chapter 145, Code, providing that if any officer of any county in this state embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, bullion, money, bank notes, security for money, or any effects or property of any person, which shall have come into his possession, or been placed under his care or management, by virtue of his office, place or employment, he shall be guilty of larceny thereof, one under common law indictment for larceny may be convicted for that offense by evidence showing that he embezzled the property alleged to have been stolen. (p. 773.)
2. Embezzlement County Officers, Converting to Own Use
Credits or Demands of County for Money Constructively in Their Possession Guilty of Larceny.
Within the meaning of the statute, property belonging to the county, consisting of credits or demands for money against the sheriff of the county, is placed under the care or management of the President and Commissioners of the county court of the county, by virtue of their office; and although such credits or demands may not come into their actual possession, if the President or any of the Commissioners of the county court embezzle or fraudulently convert to their own use any of such credits or demands they are guilty of the larceny thereof. (p. 773.)
Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.
State v. Workman
D. F. Workman was convicted of stealing certain moneys belonging to the county of Raleigh, and he brings error.
G. M. Ward, A. P. Farley, Hugh A. Dunn, and J. Q. Hutchinson, for plaintiff in error.
E. T. England, Attorney General, B. A. Blessing, Assistant Attorney General, J. W. Maxwell and 0senton & Lee, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of feloniously stealing certain moneys belonging to the county of Raleigh. The sufficiency of the indictment is not challenged here. The first and main ground of error relied on is that the evidence adduced does not correspond to the charge in the indictment and is insufficient to support the verdict.
The record shoAVs that the defendant and one, Stover, were commissioners of the county court of Raleigh County; that the county court was about to purchase a poor farm; that the two commissioners were informed by C. L. Lilly that as agent he had a farm for sale belonging to S. W. Trail that AA'ould be suitable for the purpose. The tAvo commissioners went with Lilly and made an examination of the farm. Lilly testifies that under the arrangement he had with Trail, Trail was to receive $8,850 for the farm, and Lilly was to receive all over that sum, if a sale should be made; that he so informed the two commissioners, and that an arrangement was entered into between him and them whereby they were to vote for the purchase of the farm by the county court at the price of $12,500, and the difference in the price Trail was to receive and the price the county court was to pay, or $3,650, was to be divided equally between Stover, Lilly and Workman; that the arrangement was carried out, at least in part. The commissioners voted for the purchase, the president of the court voting against it, the deed for the farm was executed by Trail, accepted by the court, and the clerk of the court was directed to issue an order on the sheriff for $12,500 in favor of Trail in payment. The order was issued to Trail, presented by him to the sheriff, endorsed and made payable by the sheriff at the Bank of Raleigh. Trail had it presented at the Beckley National Bank, the $8,850 was credited to his account, and the balance of $3,650 was paid to him or his attorney in cash, who immediately thereafter paid that sum to Lilly, as his commission of profit. Lilly testifies that he gave the defendant out of this fund $2,500; $1,000 of it was to be paid by him to Commissioner Stover as his share; $1,000 was to be retained by the defendant as his share; and $500 was to be paid to Quincy Stover, who had been induced to withdraw from the consideration of the court certain farms which he had priced to the court.
The county clerk produced and there was admitted in evidence the records of his office showing the qualification of the commissioners, the order for the purchase of the farm, acceptance of the deed, and direction to issue the order for $12,500, which order was adopted by the county court on the vote of the two commissioners. There was also admitted in evidence a copy of the deed, and the original order or draft for the payment, endorsed by Trail. This was produced from the clerk's office where it appears it had been...
To continue readingRequest your trial
State v. Riley
...of the school board when a discount could be obtained, and thus it clearly comes within the provisions of this Statute. State v. Workman, 91 W.Va. 771, 114 S.E. 276. It has been held that where one having authority to draw checks on a county account does so and unlawfully sends it to a thir......
State v. Pietranton
...a conviction of the latter offense, if the evidence is sufficient.' See State v. Cantor, 93 W.Va. 238, 245, 116 S.E. 396; State v. Workman, 91 W.Va. 771, 114 S.E. 276; State v. De Berry, 75 W.Va. 632, 84 S.E. 508. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the indictment was of sufficient form ......
State v. Frasher
...property need not be from the actual owner of the property, but may be from one who has lawful possession of it. In State v. Workman, 91 W.Va. 771, 114 S.E. 276 (1922), a county commissioner was charged with embezzling county funds. He and another commissioner had voted to authorize the pur......
State v. Houdeyshell, 16244
...that he embezzled the property alleged to have been stolen. State v. West, 157 W.Va. 209, 200 S.E.2d 859 (1973); State v. Workman, 91 W.Va. 771, 114 S.E. 276 (1922); State v. DeBerry, 75 W.Va. 632, 84 S.E. 508 (1915); State v. Lewis, 69 W.Va. 472, 72 S.E. 475 The defendant's contention, the......