Woolsey v. People
Citation | 98 Colo. 62,53 P.2d 596 |
Decision Date | 25 November 1935 |
Docket Number | 13659. |
Parties | WOOLSEY v. PEOPLE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1936.
Error to District Court, Yuma County; Arlington Taylor, Judge.
H. E Woolsey was convicted of assenting, as an officer and director of a bank, to reception of a deposit while the bank was insolvent, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Thomas H. Gibson, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and Walter F. Scherer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Woolsey, defendant in the trial court, an officer and director of the Union State Bank of Yuma, Colo., was prosecuted under a charge of assenting to the reception of a deposit in said bank while it was insolvent, with full knowledge of such insolvency.
The information, so far as here material, and omitting the formal parts, charges as follows: 'That Fred H. Cole, Sr., Alfred Itten, H. E. Woolsey, M. I. Stebbins and M. M. Dickson and each of them, late of the County of Yuma and State of Colorado, on or about the 20th day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one at and within the County and State aforesaid, being then and there officers and directors of The Union State Bank of Yuma, Colorado, a bank duly incorporated, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and carrying on a general banking business in the Town of Yuma in the County of Yuma and State of Colorado, did then and there fraudulently, knowingly and feloniously receive and assent to the reception of a certain deposit of money, to-wit, the sum of $21.79 in money, of the value of $21.79 and a certain deposit in bank checks, to-wit: [here follows a detailed list of bank checks and amounts totalling $37.85] of the personal property and moneys of the Equity Cooperative Oil Company, a corporation, duly incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, by the said bank; the said The Union State Bank of Yuma, Colorado, a banking corporation, being then and there insolvent and that they, the said Fred H. Cole, Sr., Alfred Itten, H. E. Woolsey, M. I. Stebbins, M. M. Dickson, and each of them, at the time and Before the reception of the deposit had full knowledge of the fact that the said The Union State Bank of Yuma, Colorado, a banking corporation, was insolvent; and so the said Fred H. Cole, Sr., Alfred Itten, H. E. Woolsey, M. I. Stebbins and M. M. Dickson and each of them in the manner and form aforesaid then and there did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away the money and other valuable things of the said The Equity Cooperative Oil Company, a corporation, of the total value of $59.64 as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same People of the State of Colorado.'
The statutes under which this prosecution was brought are: Section 2676, C.L.1921, being section 40, chapter 44, Session Laws 1913 (page 127), which is as follows: And section 2740, C.L.1921, being section 85, chapter 44, Session Laws of 1913 (page 137), reading: 'Any person who shall wilfully or knowingly fail to perform any act required, and as required by sections 22, 23, 40, 42, 58 and 63 hereof, or who shall commit any act in violation of said sections, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not to exceed twenty years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The foregoing superseded similar sections to be found in Session Laws 1885, at page 50, and Revised States 1908, § 281, which were repealed by the 1913 act. The act of 1885 was substantially the same as the act of 1913, except that it stated that one who violated its provisions 'shall be deemed guilty of larceny, and on conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary,' etc., while the later act provides that the doing of the same things inhibited by the former law shall constitute a felony to be punished as in the act provided.
The form of information used in the case under consideration is substantially the same as that used in the cases of Robertson v. People, 20 Colo. 279, 38 P. 326, and McClure v. People, 27 Colo. 358, 61 P. 612. Both of these cases were prosecuted under the 1885 act.
The defendant in the present case contends that the information on which he was tried charges him with larceny, and that it was error for the court to give instruction No. 1, because that instruction failed to state that 'in the manner and form aforesaid' a larceny was committed. The instruction correctly states the crime charged in the information and sets out the essential elements, proof of which was necessary to establish defendant's guilt. The information in this case is the identical information passed upon by this court in the case of Cole v. People, 92 Colo. 145, 18 P.2d 470, 471. Cole was a codefendant, tried separately under the same information which is now Before us for consideration. The information was attacked in the Cole Case on the ground that it charged two separate and distinct crimes. In disposing of that objection the court, in construing the information, used words so pertinent to the questions here involved that we deem it unnecessary to do more than quote the former holding of our court in that case. On this point Mr. Justice Butler used the following language:
A rehearing in the Cole Case was denied January 30, 1933, and the trial of the case here under consideration was begun April 18, 1934, more than a year after that decision. The chief counsel in the Cole Case was the leading counsel for defendant in the trial of this case. The decision in the Cole Case was available in the construction of identically the same information under which the defendant in this case was convicted. That decision informed the defendant of the constituent elements of the crime with which he was charged, and the issues he had to meet in order to refute that charge. Neither the defendant nor his counsel could possibly have been misled in any respect as to the law here applicable in the light of the decision in the Cole Case. The information charged the crime defined by statute and not the crime of larceny.
The trial of this cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McParlin
...cert. denied, 343 U.S. 967, 72 S.Ct. 1063, 96 L.Ed. 1364 (1952); Stine v. United States, 32 F.2d 742 (8th Cir. 1929); Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62, 53 P.2d 596 (1936). The trial justice, by charging the jury that defendant was accused of cunnilingus and defining only that variation of § 1......
-
Wright v. People
...and under such circumstances we cannot interfere. ' 35 C.S.A. c. 48, § 490; Manship v. People, 99 Colo. 1, 58, P.2d 1215; Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62, 53 P.2d 596; Grandbouche v. People, 104 Colo. 175, 89 P.2d Cole v. People, 92 Colo. 145, 18 P.2d 470, 471. In the case last above cited t......
-
Woolsey v. Best, 256
...chapter 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state. Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62, 53 P.(2d) 596. It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as wel......
- Ballou v. First Nat. Bank of Colo. Spring, 13688.