Territory of Arizona v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 19 April 1890
• Docket Number: Criminal 61
• Parties: TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A. LEONARD MEYER, Defendant and Appellant
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

24 P. 183

3 Ariz. 199

TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A. LEONARD MEYER, Defendant and Appellant

Criminal No. 61

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 19, 1890

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Joseph H. Kibbey Judge.

Affirmed.

C. F Ainsworth, Edwards & Buck, and Frank Baxter, for Appellant.

Clark Churchill, Attorney-General, Frank Cox, District Attorney and Goodrich & Street, of counsel, for Respondent.

Abstract and immaterial error is insufficient to reverse a judgment. People v. Ybarra, 17 Cal. 166; People v. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388-404; People v. Turley, 50 Cal. 469; People v. Sprague, 53 Cal. 491; People v. Walsh, 43 Cal. 447-451; People v. March, 6 Cal. 543-547; People v. Moore, 8 Cal. 90.

An instruction must be wholly erroneous or susceptible of doubtful construction to warrant an appellate court in saying the jury were misled. People v. Moore, 8 Cal. 90.

The supreme court will not disturb a judgment in a criminal case on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict unless there is a total deficiency of evidence, or it preponderates so greatly against the verdict as to render it clear that the jury must have acted under the influence of passion or prejudice. People v. Manning, 48 Cal. 335.

Sloan, J. Wright, C. J., and Kibbey, J., concurring.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

SLOAN, J.

The defendant, A. Leonard Meyer, was tried at the October term 1889, of the district court of Maricopa County upon an indictment charging him with having, as the agent of Wells, Fargo & Co., embezzled from the company the sum of $ 5,800. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied. From the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial defendant appeals. The proof shows that Meyer was the agent of Wells, Fargo & Co., a corporation, and as such agent had general charge of the express and money-order business of the company at Phoenix, Arizona. He was allowed a commission upon the freight business of the office, and was entitled to the amount due him, no matter where collected, at the end of each month, when he settled with the company. He was also allowed a small commission upon the amount of money orders sold by him. He received no other compensation. It was his duty to send into the general office of the company at San Francisco weekly reports of the money-order business done, with the amounts due the company, and at the end of each month to make a report of the freight business done through the office, and send in the amounts of receipt therefrom after deducting his commissions. At the trial the prosecution was permitted to show that between March 12 and April 15, 1889, Meyer disposed of certain money orders of Wells, Fargo & Co. to various persons, some in payment of individual debts, and others for the purpose of raising money thereon for his personal use. Counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence upon the ground that the same was immaterial and irrelevant, for the reason that these money orders had been disposed of prior to April 15th, when it was admitted that the money-order business had been correctly reported by Meyer up to said date. It appeared in proof, however, that the money-order reports up to and including the one for April 15th were not sent in when due, but were retained by defendant for days after they should have been forwarded; and for this reason we think the evidence was admissible as tending to connect defendant with any shortage in the office after April 15th.

Counsel for defendant urge that the court erred in admitting over objection certain statements not in the handwriting of defendant, showing the business of the office for the month of April and part of the month of May, being the time in which it is claimed by the prosecution that the shortage in Meyer's accounts with the company occurred. These statements were made out by one P. B. Yates, who was a clerk in the employ of Meyer. According to the testimony of Yates it was his duty to make out the reports and statements of the business of the office, and that Meyer had always settled with the company from them; that the statements introduced in evidence were made out by him under Meyer's instructions, and were left by him upon Meyer's desk in the office for Meyer's inspection; that these remained there until Meyer...