State v. Whiteman
| Decision Date | 17 July 1894 |
| Citation | 37 P. 659,9 Wash. 402 |
| Parties | STATE v. WHITEMAN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Emmett N. Parker, Judge.
Harry Whiteman was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. I Agnew, for appellant.
William H. Snell, Pros. Atty., for the State.
The indictment upon which the defendant was convicted was in the following language: "Harry Whiteman is accused by the prosecuting attorney of the county of Pierce, state of Washington, by this information, of the crime of larceny committed as follows: The said Harry Whiteman, on or about the 1st day of October, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, at the county of Pierce and state of Washington, and within one year prior to the filing of this information, being then and there a person, to wit, the duly-appointed assignee of Robert Rhodes and William Clark, copartners doing business as Rhodes & Clark, and as such assignee, then and there was intrusted by the said Robert Rhodes and William Clark, copartners as aforesaid, with the custody, care, and safe-keeping of certain moneys and funds of said copartnership aforesaid, to wit, two hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty cents, of the good and lawful money of the United States, of the then and there value of two hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty cents, of the moneys and funds of said copartnership aforesaid, and did then and there unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously convert the said two hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty cents to his own use, and did fail to account to the said copartnership or either of its members for the same, or any part thereof contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington." Upon this appeal its sufficiency is attacked upon several grounds: First, that the nature of the fiduciary relation is not set out; second, that it is not charged that he received the moneys; third, that there is no allegation that he converted them to his own use with intent to defraud the owner thereof; and, fourth, that there should have been such an allegation contained in the indictment as to show affirmatively the duty of the defendant to have paid over the moneys. There is some force in the criticisms of this indictment as above set forth, but when it is interpreted in the light of our statute, which declares that indictments shall be sufficient if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jakubowski
... ... No demurrer to the information ... appears in the record, but, in any event, the information, ... which charged the crime practically in the language of the ... statute, was sufficient. State v. Turner, 10 Wash ... 94, 38 P. 864; State v. Whiteman, 9 Wash. 402, 37 P ... 659; State v. Whitworth, 30 Wash. 47, 70 P. 254; ... State v. Bogardus, 36 Wash. 297, 78 P. 942 ... The ... court instructed the jury: 'If, however, you should find ... that the understanding and agreement between the defendant ... ...
-
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 ... in accord with the modern authorities. People v. Hill, 3 ... Utah, 344, 3 P. 75; State v. Turner, 10 Wash ... 94, 38 P. 864; State v. Whiteman, 9 Wash. 402, 37 P ... 659; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443 ... Where a ... demand is not made an ingredient of the crime ... ...
-
State v. Yelle
...where the duty was to be performed, an examination of the cases discloses in almost every instance that the facts show, as in the Whiteman case, supra, that some part the act constituting the crime was committed in the county where it is held the venue should be laid, or the decision of the......
-
Clack v. State
...county, and that therefore the venue was properly laid and proved in the case at bar. As was aptly said by Hoyt, J., in State v. Whiteman, 9 Wash. 402, 37 P. 659: "It would be a difficult matter, in almost all cases, for the state to show the exact location of the defendant at the time he a......