State v. Winstandley
| Decision Date | 04 October 1900 |
| Docket Number | 18,682 |
| Parties | The State v. Winstandley et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Clark Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
W. L Taylor, Attorney-General, H. C. Montgomery, W. C. Utz, J. K Marsh, F. E. Matson, Merrill Moores and C. C. Hadley, for State.
A Dowling, C. D. Kelso, J. V. Kelso, M. Z. Stannard, W. H. Watson, C. L. Jewett and H. E. Jewett, for appellees.
Indictment in two counts for embezzlement. Motion to quash each count sustained. The State appeals.
In substance, it is charged in the first count that at, etc., and on, etc., William L. Breyfogle, Isaac S. Winstandley, and Clarence J. Frederick, each then and there being officers, agents, and employes of a certain banking company known as the New Albany Banking Company, which banking company had been theretofore organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, and which said banking company was then and there carrying on a banking business in the city of New Albany, Indiana, the same Breyfogle, Winstandley, and Frederick, "having access to, control and possession of, a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of $ 76,108.70, of the value of $ 76,108.70, to the possession of which the said New Albany Banking Company at said time was entitled; that they, the said William L. Breyfogle, Isaac S. Winstandley, and Clarence J. Frederick, while in such employment and acting as officers, agents and employes of said New Albany Banking Company, as aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, and fraudulently take, purloin, secrete, misapply, and appropriate to their own use, and to the use of William S. Winstandley, the said sum of $ 76,108.70, the said sum of $ 76,108.70 then and there being deposited with, and held by, the said New Albany Banking Company; contrary," etc.
The second count is the same as the first, except that in the second the bank is alleged to be incorporated.
The gist of the charge is that the defendants, being officers, agents, and employes of the bank, and having access to, and control and possession of, a large sum of money, to which the bank was entitled to possession, while in such employment, and acting as such officers, agents, and employes, did unlawfully and fraudulently take and appropriate to their own use, etc. It will be noted that it is not averred that the defendants had access to and control and possession of the money appropriated by them, by virtue of their employment. It is stated by the State's attorney that the prosecution is under § 2022 Burns 1894, § 1944 Horner 1897; and, to make out a crime under this section, it must appear that the act charged was not criminal before the passage of the act of 1865 (Acts 1865 S. S., p. 204), the substance of which act is carried into § 2022, supra, in the compilation of 1881. Smith v. State, 28 Ind. 321. See, also, State v. Wingo, 89 Ind. 204.
If the duties of the defendants, as officers, agents, and employes of the bank were such as had no connection with the money of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ensley
...538, 74 N. E. 1. [4] Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted. State v. Winstandley (1900) 155 Ind. 290, 58 N. E. 71. There must be a conversion, but this may be either actual or constructive. In State v. Wells (1887) 112 Ind. 237, on p......
-
State v. Ensley
... ... Co. (1896), 146 Ind. 466, 45 N.E. 588, 35 L ... R. A. 686, 58 Am. St. 359; Robertson v ... Ford (1905), 164 Ind. 538, 74 N.E. 1 ... ... Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property by a ... person to whom it has been entrusted. State v ... Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E. 71. There ... must be a conversion, but this may be either actual or ... constructive ... In ... State v. Wells (1887), 112 Ind. 237, 13 ... N.E. 722, this court construed this statute, and, in the ... course of its opinion, on page 240 it ... ...
-
Collins v. State
...If so, it is supported by abundant impressions of the law. State v. Nugent (1914) 182 Ind. 200, 106 N. E. 361;State v. Winstandley (1900) 155 Ind. 290, 58 N. E. 71. It has been held by courts of other jurisdictions that such a failure to pay over as provided by the statute constitutes embez......
-
Hinshaw v. State
... ... was by virtue of the office, or the agency, or the ... employment. These principles of pleading were well ... established before the act in question was passed by the ... legislature; and this particular act has been interpreted by ... this court. State v. Winstandley (1899), ... 154 Ind. 443, 57 N.E. 109; State v ... Winstandley (1900), 155 Ind. 290, 58 N.E. 71; ... Vinnedge v. State (1906), 167 Ind. 415, 79 ... N.E. 353; Wright v. State (1907), 168 Ind ... 643, 81 N.E. 660 ... Both ... counts of the indictment are bad, and the court ... ...