Connelly v. StateConnelly v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dattimore
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hardin County of embezzlement, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
This is a companion case to M. E. Connelly v. State, No. 7247, opinion handed down January 24, 1923. Practically all the contentions made in the instant case were disposed of by us in our opinion in the companion case referred to.
Whеre the indictment contains two counts and the trial court submits only one, a verdict finding the aсcused “guilty as charged,” is sufficient. Such verdict could only be held responsive to the chаrge of the court and to the count in the indiсtment submitted to the jury.
In the first count in said indictment appellant was charged with embezzlement of $600, the property of the Citizens National Bank of Sour Lake, Texas; in the second count he was charged with embezzlement of $600, the рroperty of Ambrose Jackson. The cоurt submitted to the jury appellant’s guilt as prediсated only upon his embezzlement of the рroperty of said bank. Complaint is made that the want of consent of said bank is not made to appear in the record. We аre unable to assent to the soundness of this contention. The president of the bank testifiеd that neither he nor any of the bank officiаls gave to appellant permission tо embezzle, misapply or approрriate $600 of the bank’s money. Appellant was cashier of said bank at the time of the alleged offense, and $600 was turned over to him in his sаid capacity as an officer of thе bank, and it appears from the record without dispute that he did not-place said mоneys with the other money of the bank, and that nо entry of such deposit was ever made by him. Thеreafter and upon discovery of irregularities appellant ■ was discharged from said position, and upon investigation of the fаcts concerning the deposit of said money, the bank paid to Mr. Jackson, the depositor, the sum of $600. We think the testimony sufficiently showеd the want of consent- on the part of thе alleged owner, to the misappropriation by appellant.
*399 All of the other questions raised by appellant were fully discussed in the companion case and will not be here further elaborated.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.