State v. Norgard, 25511.
| Decision Date | 17 August 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25511. |
| Citation | 48 P.2d 618,183 Wash. 208 |
| Parties | STATE v. NORGARD. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.
E Walter Norgard was convicted of fraudulently falsifying county records and converting money to his own use, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
A. E Dailey and John B. Fogarty, both of Everett, for appellant.
Charles R. Denney, of Everett, amicus curiae.
A. W Swanson, G. W. Louttit, and Frederick A. Clanton, all of Everett, for the State.
Appellant was accused by information and convicted of violating Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2348, which reads: 'Every officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate or falsify any record or paper appertaining to his office, or who shall fraudulently appropriate to his own use or to the use of another person, or secrete with intent to appropriate to such use, any money, evidence of debt or other property intrusted to him by virtue of his office, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by both.'
The information comprised nineteen counts, in all of which are set out acts and transactions alleged to have been in violation of the above statute.
Count I of the information reads: 'He, the said E. Walter Norgard, was, on or about the 5th day of October, 1932, the duly elected, qualified and acting County Clerk of Snohomish County, Washington, and did, on or about said date in Snohomish County, Washington, while acting as said Clerk, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously mutilate, conceal, erase, obliterate and falsify a record and paper appertaining to his office, to wit, the official duplicate receipt which should acknowledge receipt of $8.20 paid by Clarence J. Coleman for the preparation of a transcript on appeal in the case of Clarence J. Coleman vs. Hillman Investment Company, by writing $6.20 in words and figures in said duplicate receipt and said E. Walter Norgard, at said time and place, did fraudulently appropriate to his own use the sum of $2.00 in lawful money of the United States, the difference between the sum given for said transcript by said Clarence J. Coleman and the amount stated on said duplicate receipt and said sum of $2.00 was entrusted to said E. Walter Norgard by virtue of his office.'
Two of the counts were dismissed during the trial and seventeen were submitted to the jury. Appellant was convicted and sentenced on all of the seventeen counts submitted, from which this appeal is brought.
Eight errors are assigned by appellant for reversal of the conviction, the first five of which all relate to the asserted duplicity of the information. Under those errors it is contended that the information is duplicitous because in each count it is charged that appellant did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously mutilate, conceal, erase, obliterate, and falisfy a record and paper appertaining to his office, and that he did fraudulently appropriate to his own use certain sums of money.
All counts in the information allege the offense in the same manner, except that the amounts and names of the parties from whom the money was received were different.
The method used by appellant was the same in every instance. The evidence was substantial and ample to sustain the conviction under each submitted count.
The record discloses that the method used by appellant was substantially this: He kept duplicate receipt books. When money was paid into his office, an original receipt was written upon a perforated sheet of paper and a carbon duplicate made at the same time by means of carbon paper; the duplicates not being perforated and not being easily torn out. The original receipt was given to the party paying money to him. The duplicate receipt remained in the clerk's office as the original entry of the money received by him. It is these duplicate receipts which were falsified. All of the counts relate to money received for the preparation of transcripts on appeal. In some of the counts appellant himself issued the receipts to the parties paying money to him. The original receipt would show the actual amount paid to appellant, but by placing a blotter or some kind of paper behind the carbon, it prevented the carbon from showing the amount at the time of writing the receipt. Later, appellant placed a piece of paper over the carbon above the duplicate receipt and wrote another receipt for a smaller amount than was actually received by him. The difference in the money received and the amount shown on the duplicate receipt was converted to his own use. An examination of the records in the county treasurer's office, all of which were introduced in evidence, showed that the amount paid to the county treasurer was the amount shown in the duplicate receipt took and not the amount actually received by appellant. In some cases where the original and duplicate receipt had been written by one of his deputies, the duplicate receipt made by the deputy was torn out of hte duplicate receipt book and appellant wrote another supposed duplicate receipt for a smaller amount than had been received by the deputy. In such case the original receipt was in the handwriting of the deputy and the supposed duplicate was in the handwriting of appellant. These facts were admitted in substance, by appellant on the witness stand.
Appellant attempted to explain his conduct by stating that in those cases where the discrepancy did not exceed $2, the extra $2 were collected by him for the purpose of paying postage and express of the transcripts on appeal to Olympia. In two...
To continue reading
Request your trial