State v. Kennedy

• Citation: 239 S.W. 869
• Decision Date: 03 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14329.,14329.
• Parties: STATE v. KENNEDY.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

239 S.W. 869

STATE v. KENNEDY.

No. 14329.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 3, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; W. H. Utz, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Marzo Kennedy was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John E. Heffley and W. N. Linn, both of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Perry A. Brubaker, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging that he "did * * * unlawfully and feloniously steal, take, and carry away" certain electrical goods and material of the aggregate value of $400 belonging to the American Electric Company, a corporation. Upon a trial the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of petit larceny, and assessed his punishment at six months in the county jail.

Defendant contends that he was charged and convicted of larceny, while the evidence shows that he was guilty of embezzlement. The facts in this connection show as follows: The witness Graham, who was sales manager of the American Electric Company, testified on behalf of the state that defendant was stock clerk of the company, and that his duties were to keep a record of the stock on hand, and note when the stock needed to be replenished or purchased. It was his duty to go through the house looking through the stock so as to keep the officers advised regarding "stock conditions," so that they could order more stock if necessary; that defendant checked in material when it came to the electric company, and checked it out when it went to the customer. Defendant had charge of the stock room, and when stock was taken out by any one it was reported to defendant, so that he could make a report of it. He made no check from the stock, but from the sales tickets. There were no goods charged to him personally, nor did he have complete charge of the stock. Other persons had access to the stock room, but they reported to the defendant what was taken out, so he could make a record of it. Defendant had access to every department in the house of the company, and he was its confidential man. He had nothing to do with delivering goods.

Witness Platt, who testified on behalf of the state, stated that defendant had charge, but no control, of the invoices and inventories of the company, and "that defendant had no stock"; that he kept invoices which he had charge of, upon which he checked the stock; that defendant had an account with the company; that he bought goods like any other person, and was charged on the books with them. When he (defendant) would buy goods he would get a requisition and obtain an order for the goods; that defendant had the power to order goods "upon the signature" of this witness. When the goods would come in defendant would...