State v. Skinner

• Decision Date: 17 March 1908
• Citation: 210 Mo. 373,109 S.W. 38
• Parties: STATE v. SKINNER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

109 S.W. 38

210 Mo. 373

STATE v. SKINNER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 17, 1908.

1. EMBEZZLEMENT—INFORMATION—REQUISITES —"EMBEZZLEMENT."

It was not essential to the validity of an information against the treasurer of a labor organization, under Rev. St. 1899, § 1918 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1308), making it embezzlement for an officer or member of any trade organization to convert to his own use any money that may have come into his hands by virtue of his office or any trust reposed in him, to allege that the money was converted by defendant to his own use without the consent of the owners and with the intent to deprive the owners of the use of the money permanently.

2. SAME—OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY.

An information under Rev. St. 1899, § 1918 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1308), charging defendant as treasurer of a trade organization with embezzlement of the funds belonging to the organization and received by him as treasurer, sufficiently avers ownership of the property embezzled; the statute embracing an embezzlement by an officer of any trade organization, whether incorporated or not, and it therefore being not essential in framing a charge to treat the members of the organization as partners.

3. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—PRESERVATION IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS OF REVIEW—REVIEW OF INSTRUCTIONS AND FAILURE TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS.

On appeal from a conviction, where there is no complaint in the motion for a new trial as to the instructions, and no error assigned that the court failed to fully instruct the jury upon all questions of law necessary for the jury, the instructions or failure to give instructions are not before the Supreme Court for review.

4. EMBEZZLEMENT—DEFENSES.

In a prosecution against the treasurer of a trade organization for embezzling its funds, there was no merit in the contention that the prosecution could not be maintained because of the illegality of the organization; it being common knowledge that the purposes of such organizations are the welfare of their members, and defendant, a member and treasurer of the organization, being in no position to say that it was an unlawful organization, and that he was therefore authorized, if he saw fit, to convert its funds to his own use.

5. SAME—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In a prosecution against the treasurer of a trade organization for embezzling its funds, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a verdict of guilty.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge.

Clarence O. Skinner was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is brought to this court by appeal on the part of the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis convicting him of the offense of embezzlement. The conviction and judgment in this case are predicated upon an information filed by the assistant circuit attorney on the 18th day of December, 1905, which was duly verified. Omitting formal parts, it was as follows: "Richard M. Johnson, assistant circuit attorney, in and for the city of St. Louis aforesaid, within and for the body of the city of St. Louis, on behalf of the state of Missouri, upon his official oath, information makes as follows: That Clarence O. Skinner on or about the fourteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, was a member of the Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, of the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, and the said Clarence O. Skinner, being then and there an officer of said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, to wit, treasurer, duly appointed, elected, and qualified under the laws, rules, and regulations of said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, and that by virtue of his said membership, office, and official position in said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, did then and there receive and have in his custody and possession, care, and control the moneys of the said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, to a large amount, to wit, six hundred and sixty dollars, lawful money of the United States, and was by virtue of his said membership, office, and official position in said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, trusted with the safe-keeping and disbursement of said moneys belonging to and being the property of the said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, according to the laws, rules, and regulations of the said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, and being so intrusted with and having the care, custody, and control as aforesaid of said moneys, to wit, the said sum of six hundred and sixty dollars, of the value of six hundred and sixty dollars, all the moneys, and property of and belonging to the said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, by him, the said Clarence O. Skinner, received and taken into his possession, care, and custody and control by virtue of his said membership, office, and official position in said Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. Five, as aforesaid, for safe-keeping and disbursement, as aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently embezzle and make away with and convert to his own use, and the said sum of money in the manner and form aforesaid, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away; against the peace and dignity of the state." At the April term, 1906, of said court, the defendant was put upon his trial. The evidence upon the part of the state tended to prove that the Bill Posters' and Billers' Union was a labor organization, organized some time in 1901; that its object was to promote the welfare of its members; that it was a voluntary association, and had a constitution and by-laws; that the officers of the organization consisted of president, vice president, corresponding, and financial secretary and treasurer, also a recording secretary and three trustees. The evidence further tended to prove that the defendant was elected to the office of treasurer of the Bill Posters' and Billers' Union, Local No. 5, in December, 1903, and installed in office about the first of the year 1904; that he was re-elected to the office of treasurer in 1904, and continued to hold such office until the 14th day of March, 1905. The defendant was the successor in office of one H. W. Lake. About the month of February or March, 1904, defendant, as treasurer, received from Lake funds of the organization amounting to something less than $800 and more than $700. The sum of money transferred by Lake to the defendant consisted of $200 in cash and a sum of money evidenced by a deposit book. This transfer was made in the presence of one John W. Owen. At a meeting of this organization on the evening of March 13, 1905, defendant stated in answer to inquiry that he had in the treasury between $600 and $700. At this meeting defendant was authorized to renew his bond as treasurer. A day or two after this meeting defendant by letter informed one of the members of the union that his books and vouchers would be found on his desk in the office of the union. The next seen of the defendant was at the time of his arrest in the latter part of July. The evidence further tended to prove that defendant did not account for the money in his possession, but that he converted it to his own use. When arrested, defendant was told by the officers that this union accused him of taking about $700 of its funds, in reply to which he said: "I don't care what they say I took. It was about $600." When asked what he did with the money, replied that he "used it at various times for various things." A number of vouchers were introduced by the state purporting to show that certain sums of money had been paid out by defendant. According to the serial number of such vouchers, one, two, or perhaps more were missing. The evidence further tended to prove that the account books of the union were not in existence, or that they could not be found at the time of the trial. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendant had ever had an accounting with the union, or that any demand had been made upon him for the return of the funds. Over the objections of defendant, the state introduced in evidence a book kept by the various treasurers of the union, which contained entries made by defendant during his term of office. At the close of the state's evidence, defendant asked an...