State v. Owings
Decision Date | 03 November 1944 |
Docket Number | 15685. |
Citation | 31 S.E.2d 906,205 S.C. 314 |
Parties | STATE v. OWINGS. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
L E. Wood, of Greer, and J. G. Leatherwood, of Greenville, for appellant.
W A. Bull, of Greenville, Sol., for respondent.
The appellant was tried and convicted in the Court of General Sessions for Greenville County of the offense of breach of trust with a fraudulent intention. The indictment was in the usual form.
The appellant was an agent of Carolina Life Insurance Company and as such agent he collected premiums on policies of insurance issued by said Company, both ordinary and industrial, for which he failed to remit to the insurance company, his shortage aggregating a sum in excess of $500, all of which is admitted by the appellant.
Notwithstanding the admission by the appellant of the substantive facts above related, he undertook to testify that in appropriating the premiums collected to his own use, it was not with a fraudulent intent--that he did not intend to defraud either the insurance company or the policy holders. It is to this issue that appellant's exceptions in the main are directed by reason of the trial Judge's rulings and remarks in making his rulings.
There is a full discussion of our "breach of trust" statute in State v. McCann, 167 S.C. 393, 166 S.E. 411, 412, and in which case Mr. Chief Justice Blease, writing the opinion of the Court, quoted with approval from the opinion in State v. Shirer, 20 S.C. 392, the following: ' (An embezzlement statute was enacted in 1898, but relates to public funds only). The McCann case definitely holds that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a fraudulent intention is necessary before the crime of breach of trust is complete."
Breach of trust is larceny after trust, which includes all of the elements of larceny or in common parlance, stealing, except the unlawful taking in the beginning. As was stated in State v. McCann, supra, ***"
Apparently a portion of the testimony is set out in the record in narrative form, and other portions verbatim, but on the whole is understandable. The appellant, after narrating the amount of his weekly collections, and referring to a stamp system of bookkeeping to which he objected, and that he had found that his account was out of balance, stated: "After deductions for victory tax, social security, my payments to the company (appellant was paying by the week a loan which had been made to him by the insurance company), and so on, I have had as little as $2.75 a week left in my ticket."
The trial Judge was unfortunate in his choice of words in making his ruling. The issue being tried by the jury was whether the appellant had used the money of the insurance company with a fraudulent intention--whether he was guilty of stealing the money which had been intrusted to him, and yet the trial Judge denominated the appellant's conduct as stealing.
Near the close of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jackson
...all of the elements of larceny or in common parlance, stealing, except the unlawful taking in the beginning." State v. Owings, 205 S.C. 314, 316, 31 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1944), quoted in State v. Scott, 330 S.C. 125, 130, 497 S.E.2d 735, 738 (Ct.App.1998). Thus, "[t]he primary difference betwee......
-
§ 2-39 Breach of Trust with Fraudulent Intent
...doubt of a fraudulent intention is necessary before crime of breach of trust with fraudulent intent is complete); State v. Owings, 205 S.C. 314, 31 S.E.2d 906 (1944); State v. McCann, 167 S.C. 393, 166 S.E. 411 (1932); Bell v. Clinton Oil Mill, 129 S.C. 242, 124 S.E. 7 (1924); State v. Shir......
-
§ 2-38 Breach of Trust with Fraudulent Intent
...doubt of a fraudulent intention is necessary before crime of breach of trust with fraudulent intent is complete); State v. Owings, 205 S.C. 314, 31 S.E.2d 906 (1944); State v. McCann, 167 S.C. 393, 166 S.E. 411 (1932); Bell v. Clinton Oil Mill, 129 S.C. 242, 124 S.E. 7 (1924); State v. Shir......