87 So. 2d 900 | Miss. | 1956
Appellant was indicted for embezzlement under Section 2118, Mississippi Code of 1942. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, and appellant was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the penitentiary.
The jury found upon ample proof that appellant, a beer dealer, obtained delivery from the Lawrence Warehouse Company of a quantity of beer under a contract or agreement that he would transport the beer to the Miller Brewing Company at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and exchange it for other beer, and that upon making the exchange of the beer obtained from the warehouse company for new beer, he would return the new beer to the Lawrence Warehouse Company at Greenwood; that appellant did not transport and deliver the beer received from Lawrence Warehouse Company as he had agreed, and did not return the beer received, and did not return to the warehouse company the new, or other beer; and that appellant appropriated the beer to his own use. Appellant received the beer under the agreement to return
According to his explanation, appellant did not know what became of the beer. The jury was justified in finding that there were no such persons as Joe Black and Ike Stein, and that the Southern Barge Line did not in fact exist. There is much confusion as to who trucked the beer to Memphis. There are numerous conflicts in the testimony of appellant, and the jury had good and sufficient grounds to find that appellant’s whole story of the shipment of the beer to Miller Brewing Company was a fabrication. The State’s proof was sufficient to show that Miller Brewing Company never agreed to exchange the old beer for new beer as appellant claimed, but appellant testified that he was a close friend of the President of the Miller Brewing Company, and that the latter agreed to allow the beer to be exchanged. The president of the brewing company, with whom appellant claimed he made the exchange arrangements, was killed in an airplane crash shortly after the alleged arrangements were made.
Appellant assigns several reasons why his demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained, all going to the proposition that the indictment did not properly inform the appellant of the nature and cause of the
We find no reversible error in the admission of testimony, and the court properly instructed the jury.
A careful consideration of the entire record and the able briefs filed in behalf of appellant indicate that appellant was skillfully represented and received a fair and impartial trial. We find no error of record that would justify this Court in disturbing the verdict of the jury.
Affirmed.