State v. Pratt

Decision Date24 June 1889
Citation11 S.W. 977,98 Mo. 482
PartiesSTATE v. PRATT.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; J. C. NORMILE, Judge.

Joseph G. Lodge and Wm. C. Jones, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

The defendant was indicted for embezzling certain money and bank-notes of the value of $3,518 belonging to the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, the denomination or description of which money and bank-notes was alleged to be by the grand jurors unknown. The indictment contained but one count. The result of the trial was the defendant was convicted, and his punishment assessed at three years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, whereupon he appealed to this court.

1. Our statute provides: "If any agent, clerk, apprentice, servant, or collector of any private person, or of any copartnership, except persons so employed under the age of sixteen years, or if any officer, agent, clerk, servant, or collector of any incorporated company, or any person employed in any such capacity, shall embezzle or convert to his own use, or shall take, make way with, or secrete, with intent to embezzle or convert to his own use, without the assent of his master or employer, any money, goods, rights in action, or valuable security or effects whatsoever, belonging to any other person, which shall have come into his possession, or under his care, by virtue of such employment or office, he shall, upon conviction, be punished in the manner prescribed by law for stealing property of the kind or the value of the articles so embezzled, taken, or secreted." Rev. St. 1879, § 1320. Upon this section the indictment is bottomed. And our statute further declares: "In every indictment in which it shall be necessary to make any averment as to any money or any note being or purporting to be made or issued by any bank incorporated by law, or made or issued by virtue of any law of the United States, it shall be sufficient to describe such money or note simply as money, without specifying any particular coin or note, and such allegation shall be sustained by proof of any amount of coin, or of any such note, although the particular species of coin of which such amount was composed, or the particular nature of such note, shall not be proved; and in cases of larceny, embezzlement, and obtaining money or such notes by false pretenses, by proof that the offender stole, embezzled, or obtained any piece of coin, or any such note, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or such note may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same, or to any other person, and such part shall have been returned accordingly." Id. § 1817. The last quoted section does away with many of the difficulties which formerly attached to prosecutions for the crime of embezzlement by rendering it unnecessary to allege or to prove, in order to a conviction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • State v. Bickford
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1913
    ... ... securities." Rev. Codes 1905, § 9864; Brown v ... State, 18 Ohio St. 496; Ker v. People, 110 Ill ... 646, 51 Am. Rep. 706, 4 Am. Crim. Rep. 211; State v ... Reinhart, 26 Ore. 466, 38 P. 826; Jackson v ... State, 76 Ga. 573; State v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482, ... 11 S.W. 978; Carl v. State, 125 Ala. 89, 28 So. 505; ... Willis v. State, 134 Ala. 429, 33 So. 226; State ... v. Wise, 186 Mo. 42, 84 S.W. 954; State v ... Wissing, 187 Mo. 96, 85 S.W. 557; State v ... Shour, 196 Mo. 202, 95 S.W. 405; Bartley v. State, 55 ... ...
  • State v. Florian
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1947
    ... ... 466, 38 P. 822; Brown v ... State, 18 Ohio St. 496; Craig v. State, 95 Fla ... 374, 116 So. 272; Ker v. People, 110 Ill. 627; ... People v. Fleming, 220 Cal. 601, 32 P.2d 593; ... Young v. State, 44 Ohio App. 1, 184 N.E. 24; ... State v. Wissing, 187 Mo. 96, 85 S.W. 557; State ... v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482, 11 S.W. 977; State v ... Lawson, 239 Mo. 591, 145 S.W. 93; State v ... Anderson, 186 Mo. 25, 84 S.W. 946; State v ... Clark, 220 Mo.App. 1308, 289 S.W. 963; State v ... Laughlin, 180 Mo. 342, 79 S.W. 401. (24) It is not the ... "receiving" of property that is the gist of the ... ...
  • State v. Noland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1892
    ...the money to his own use. An evil intent is a necessary element of the crime of embezzlement. State v. Reilley, 4 Mo.App. 392; State v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482; State Jennings, 98 Mo. 495; State v. Simpson, 73 N.C. 269. Fifth. The first clause, section 3555, Revised Statutes, 1889, "converting to......
  • State v. January
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1944
    ...been approved by this court in similar cases. Secs. 4125, 4471, R.S. 1939; State v. Cochran, 80 S.W.2d 182, 336 Mo. 649; State v. Pratt, 11 S.W. 977, 98 Mo. 482; v. Adams, 300 S.W. 738, 318 Mo. 712; State v. Baker, 285 S.W. 416; State v. Schnelt, 108 S.W.2d 377, 341 Mo. 241. Bohling, C. Wes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT