State v. Goode

• Decision Date: 21 April 1886
• Citation: 27 N.W. 772,68 Iowa 593
• Parties: STATE v. GOODE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

68 Iowa 593

27 N.W. 772

STATE

v.GOODE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 21, 1886.

Appeal from Page district court.

The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, “being over sixteen years of age, and the agent and servant of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, * * * did then and there have, receive, and take into his possession, by virtue of his employment, * * * twelve hundred dollars, * * * being the money of the said Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, said defendant's employer, and that he (the defendant) did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently embezzle and convert to his own use,” etc. A trial upon the indictment resulted in a verdict of guilty, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict The defendant appeals.Geo. E. Clarke, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS, C. J.

1. The defendant complains of the giving of an instruction in these words: “If you find from the evidence that the defendant * * * was in the employ of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, as its agent or servant, and that by virtue of said employment he received money belonging to said railroad company, as charged in the indictment, and that he embezzled and fraudulently converted the same to his own use, or that he took and secreted said money with the intent to convert the same to his own use, without the consent of said railroad company, then you will find the defendant guilty.” One objection urged to the instruction is that it allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty if the evidence showed that he secreted the company's money with intent to convert the same, when the larceny with which he was charged in the indictment was not based upon such fact, but upon the fact of actual conversion. The indictment was drawn under section 3909 of the Code. Under that section the defendant was guilty of larceny if he embezzled his employer's money, coming into his hands by virtue of his employment, by actual conversion, or by secreting the same with intent to convert. Whether, as the indictment did not charge larceny by secreting with intent to convert, it was proper to show that the larceny was committed in that way, and to ask a conviction for larceny so committed, we need not determine. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant was guilty of larceny by actual conversion. Under the evidence, then, the verdict could not properly have been different, even if the instruction given had not embraced the part objected to. We are not able to see, then, that the defendant was prejudiced.

Another objection urged is that the railroad company was not named in its articles of incorporation the “Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company,” as the instruction assumed, but the “Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company.” It appears from the evidence that the company was named in the articles as the defendant claims. It must...