State v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 01 March 1898 |
| Docket Number | 466 |
| Citation | 53 P. 278,7 Kan.App. 418 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. W. H. PIERCE |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Cherokee district court; A. H. SKIDMORE, judge. Reversed.
IN this action, W. H. Pierce, agent of one Reuben Gaston, was charged with unlawfully and feloniously neglecting and refusing to pay to his employer, Reuben Gaston, on demand, certain moneys and other things of value which came into his possession by virtue of such employment, after deducting his reasonable and stipulated charges and commissions for his services as such agent. Pierce was convicted and appealed to this court.
Case reversed and remanded.
Charles Stevens, county attorney, for The State.
W. R Cowley, for appellant.
The appellant was charged with embezzlement, under the latter part of section 95, chapter 100, of the General Statutes of 1897. The gist of the crime as charged is the refusal to deliver on demand; and the first question presented is, Was there a demand?
The defendant, W. H. Pierce, at the time he accepted the agency lived in Columbus, Cherokee county, Kansas. At the time of his arrest he lived in Cherokee, Crawford county, Kansas. The prosecuting witness, Reuben Gaston, lived in Guthrie, Okla. He could not read or write. At his dictation, R. S. Elliott of Guthrie, wrote a letter to W. H. Pierce and gave it to Reuben Gaston.
The testimony of R. S. Elliott is as follows:
There is no evidence that this letter was ever directed, stamped, or mailed. The appellee contends that Pierce admits he received this letter, and calls attention to the testimony of Reuben Gaston, as follows:
But there is no evidence that this letter containing a demand was the last letter written for Mr. Gaston by Mr. Elliott to Mr. Pierce. Our attention is also called to the testimony of Mr. Pierce, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ensley
...People, 97 Ill. 161;Wright v. People, 61 Ill. 382;State v. Hayes, 59 Kan. 61, 51 Pac. 905;State v. Bancroft, 22 Kan. 170;State v. Pierce, 7 Kan. App. 418, 53 Pac. 278. The cases relied upon in the prevailing opinion were all passed upon prior to the enactment of 1905, and prior to the publi......
-
State v. Ensley
... ... 482; ... State v. McKinney (1906), 130 Iowa 370, 106 ... N.W. 931; Haines v. People (1880), 97 Ill ... 161; Wright v. People (1871), 61 Ill. 382; ... State v. Hayes (1898), 59 Kan. 61, 51 P ... 905; State v. Bancroft (1879), 22 Kan. 170; ... State v. Pierce (1898), 7 Kan.App. 418, 53 ... The ... cases relied on in the prevailing opinion were all passed on ... prior to the enactment of 1905, and prior to the publication ... of the excellent treatise of Judge Gillett, and the changes ... in the act of 1905 were doubtless due to ... ...
-
Hinds v. Territory of Arizona
... ... defendant as well as the court of the nature of the offense ... charged. Thompson v. State, 26 Ark. 330; ... Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Cochran v ... United States, 157 U.S. 290, 15 S.Ct. 628, 39 L.Ed. 705 ... To the ... statutes prescribing the offense ... Demand ... must be made. State v. Pierce, 7 Kan. App. 418, 53 ... P. 278; People v. Page, 116 Cal. 386, 48 P. 326 ... Intent ... to defraud must be alleged. McKnight v. United ... ...
-
State v. Rehg
... ... judgment and discretion ... Our ... cases dealing with demands under this statute clearly show ... that the demand should be for the amount due and it should be ... at least reasonably clear and specific. See State v ... Hayes, 59 Kan. 61, 51 P. 905; State v. Pierce, ... 7 Kan.App. 418, 53 P. 278; State v. Eastman, 62 Kan ... 353, 63 P. 597; State v. Eary, 121 Kan. 339, 343, ... 246 P. 989; State v. Rush, 138 Kan. 465, 26 P.2d ... 581, and State v. Taylor, 140 Kan. 663, 38 P.2d 680 ... But the demand relied upon by the state was for $1,300, ... ...