State v. Thang, 29016.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 29016.,29016. |
| Citation | 246 N.W. 891,188 Minn. 224 |
| Parties | STATE v. THANG. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Renville County; Harold Baker, Judge.
Emil Thang was convicted of grand larceny in the first degree, and he appeals.
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
L. D. Barnard, of Renville, for appellant.
Henry N. Benson, Atty. Gen., and James E. Markham, Deputy Atty. Gen., and L. J. Lauerman, Co. Atty., of Olivia, for the State.
The defendant was convicted in Renville county of grand larceny in the first degree, and appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The indictment was under G. S. 1923 (2 Mason 1927) § 10369. It alleges that on September 1, 1930, the defendant misappropriated $1,000 before that time received by him as guardian of one Brede O. Strand, an incompetent person.
1. As far back as 1911, Brede O. Strand, an incompetent, came under guardianship in the probate court of Renville county. In 1923 one W. C. Hanson became his guardian in succession to another. At this time he and the defendant owned a controlling interest in the State Bank of Sacred Heart. In August, 1926, the defendant bought Hanson's interest, and as a part of the transaction it was understood that the defendant should succeed Hanson as guardian of Strand and apparently would succeed him as representative of other estates of which Hanson was guardian. Hanson resigned as guardian of Strand, and on August 26, 1926, he filed his final account showing $1,107.67 due the estate. The amount claimed to have been embezzled by the defendant is $1,000. There is no question as to the $107.67. The order accepting Hanson's resignation appointed the defendant his successor and directed a final hearing to be had on September 13, 1926. On August 26, 1926, the defendant filed with the probate court a writing in which he stated that he had investigated the final account and found the balance remaining correct, and waived any notice of the hearing on the account and accepted it as true. A delay ensued for which we find no explanation. On July 31, 1928, the defendant filed his bond and oath of office as guardian, and letters of guardianship were issued to him.
On August 31, 1926, Hanson deposited $1,000 in the guardianship account; or at least the books show that he did so. There was a credit slip to that effect. On September 1, 1926, a charge slip was made by the defendant against the guardianship account in the sum of $1,000. The defendant testified that he deposited to his personal account on September 1, 1926, $4,000. This was made up of $1,000 from the Strand guardianship— or at least the jury might find it so—and there is a suggestion that the balance was the proceeds of an accommodation note. It could be inferred, we think, that Hanson was using trust money in buying bank stock and that the defendant followed the plan or co-operated with him.
Hanson resigned on August 25, 1926, and the defendant took his oath to the petition for resignation. It was filed on August 26, 1926. The account was to be heard on September 13, 1926. The order of the probate court recites that it came on for hearing on September 13, 1926. The order of discharge was entered July 31, 1928, reciting that there was on hand $1,107.67. On that day Hanson was discharged and the defendant was appointed guardian. On August 11, 1928, Thang wrote the probate judge as follows:
The defendant claims that he did not intend to admit the receipt of the $1,000. It may be inferred that Hanson went to California in 1926, about the time of the original transaction.
On January 11, 1930, the probate court required the defendant to file an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auman v. Breckenridge Telephone Co.
... ... which all are equally exposed ... In ... State ex rel. Peoples C. & I. Co. v. District Court, 129 ... Minn. 502, 153 N.W. 119, L.R.A. 1916A, 344, ... ...