State v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 24 September 1880
• Citation: State v. Parsons, 54 Iowa 405, 6 N.W. 579 (Iowa 1880)
• Parties: THE STATE v. PARSONS
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

6 N.W. 579

54 Iowa 405

THE STATE v. PARSONS

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

September 24, 1880

Appeal from Des Moines District Court.

ON the 17th day of October, 1877, an indictment was filed in the court below, of which the following is a copy:

"The grand jury of the county of Des Moines, in the name of, and by the authority of, the State of Iowa, do find and present that A. W. Parsons, on the 1st day of September, 1877, at Des Moines county and State aforesaid; the said A. W. Parsons then and there being the treasurer of the board of directors of the independent school district of Burlington, Iowa, did by virtue of his office and employment, and whilst the said A. W. Parsons was employed in said office, have, receive and take into his possession a large sum of money, to-wit: to the amount of $ 46,000, being national bank bills and treasury notes, lawful money of the United States, and of the value of $ 46,000 of the goods and chattels and property and money of said independent school district of Burlington, Iowa; and that said money, national bank bills and treasury notes then and there unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously, did embezzle and convert to his own use.

"And so the jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said A. W. Parsons did, then and there in the manner and form aforesaid, the aforesaid money, national bank bills and treasury notes of the goods, chattels and moneys of the said independent school district of Burlington, Iowa feloniously did steal, take and carry away--contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Iowa.

"D N. SPRAGUE, District Attorney."

At the May term, 1879, of said court there was a trial to a jury upon a plea of not guilty, which resulted in a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of embezzlement. A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and judgment was pronounced upon the verdict. Defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

Thomas Hedge, D. N. Sprague, and Hall & Huston, for appellant.

J. F. McJunkin, Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

I.

One of the grounds of the motion in arrest of judgment is that the indictment does not charge the defendant with being an officer recognized by law: there being no such officer as "Treasurer of the Board of Directors." Section 1802 of the Code provides that "the board of directors of independent school districts shall, at their first regular meeting in each year, elect a president, a secretary, and a treasurer." Now it is true the statute does not provide whether these officers shall be called president, secretary, and treasurer of the board of directors, or president, secretary, and treasurer of the district. But this is wholly immaterial. The law provides for a treasurer, whose duty it is to receive and disburse the money of the district, and to name him in an indictment as treasurer of the board of directors is as plain a designation of the capacity in which he is charged as could well be made.

II. It is next urged that the indictment is insufficient because it does not charge that the defendant failed to account for the money or funds which it is alleged he converted to his own use. It is a little remarkable that this indictment should have omitted to charge that the money was by the defendant unaccounted for, in view of the decision of this court in State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa 593. It was there held that an indictment for the embezzlement of public money, under section 4243 of the Revision of 1860, should allege that the money charged to have been taken or loaned is also...