143 N.Y.S. 861 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1913
The defendant has been convicted in the Supreme Court in Kings county of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. From the judgment of conviction he has appealed to this court.
The question now involved is wholly one of law. For a cor-' rect understanding of the contention of the appellant a brief consideration of the facts proved at the trial is necessary. The defendant and two others, Thomas F. Martin and Hermann H. Lucke, were appointed by the Supreme Court in Nassau county
In the case at bar the misappropriation of the original check was to use of another, i. e., the Orescent Mortgage Company. This would not have constituted embezzlement under the definition of section 59 of article 5 of title 3 of chapter 1 of part 4 of the Eevised Statutes (2 R. S. 678).
We think the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.