State v. Woodward
| Decision Date | 21 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 68.,68. |
| Citation | 122 A. 609 |
| Parties | STATE v. WOODWARD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Mercer County.
Harry B. Woodward was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, and be brings error. Reversed.
Argued June term, 1923, before GUMMERE, C. J., and MINTURN and BLACK, JJ.
Amos M. Wain, of Trenton, for plaintiff in error.
William H. Geraghty, of Trenton, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, upon the following state of facts:
The defendant received certain tools in the county of Mercer, and at that time stated that he knew a person in Chesterfield township, county of Burlington, N. J., to whom he thought he could sell the tools for the complaining witness (the owner). That he took the tools as aforesaid, with the understanding that if he succeeded in making the sale he should bring the money, received from the sale thereof, to the son of the complaining witness, who was employed at the same mill in which the defendant was employed. That thereafter the tools were removed to a place in Chesterfield township, county of Burlington, and the defendant came to the son of the complaining witness, and said to him, That the said son of the complaining witness received the sum of $5 and took it to the complaining witness, stating that he had received it from the defendant. That the complaining witness accepted the money, but said nothing, and that a few weeks thereafter complaint was made against the defendant for withholding the tools or the proceeds from the sale thereof. After taking the tools the defendant was requested to bring them to the home of the complaining witness in order that they might be examined by a prospective purchaser. The defendant, in reply to the said request said that he was willing to bring the tools, but was too busy at the time. We are unable to perceive the constituent elements of a crime in this situation. Obviously the plaintiff in error received the goods under an agreement to purchase the same, and actually paid $5 on account thereof, and thereafter continued to use the goods as his property.
To constitute the crime of embezzlement, except in certain statutory cases, there must be some evidence of an intent to illegally appropriate the property claimed to his own use; and quite obviously the retention of the property upon a bona fide claim of ownership is inconsistent with the existence of such intent. Where an act becomes criminal only by reason of the intent with which it is done, such intent must be proved....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Monahan
...207 Mass. 141, 93 N.E. 249, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 467 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1910); State v. Labato, 7 N.J. 137, 80 A.2d 617 (1951); State v. Woodward, 99 N.J.L. 49, 122 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1923). This was early deemed a principle of natural justice. Fowler v. Padgett, 7 T.R. 509, 514 (1798). It is a rule of jus......
-
State v. Labato
...criminal offense at common law are an evil intention and an unlawful act. Actus non facet reum, nisi mens sit rea. State v. Woodward, 99 N.J.L. 49, 122 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1923). But it is within the competency of the lawgiver, in the common interest, to declare an act criminal irrespective of t......
-
State v. Feintuch
...criminal offense at common law are an evil intention and an unlawful act. Actus non facet reum, nisi mens sit rea. State v. Woodward, 99 N.J.L. 49, 122 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1923). But it is within the competency of the lawgiver, in the common interest, to declare an act criminal irrespective of t......
-
State v. Hubbs
...another is an essential element of embezzlement, and that intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,' citing State v. Woodward, 99 N.J.L. 49, 122 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1923) . We find the essentials of these principles in the charge, reading it as a whole, although not in the form or with th......