State v. JonesState v. Jones
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Proyosty
The indictment against the defendant charges thаt he “did, while acting as servant, agent, trustee, mаndatory of W. P. Sample, wrongfully and ■ feloniously embezzle, convert to his own use, dispose оf, and conceal fourteen dollars, lаwful money of the United States, which had been intrusted to his care, keeping and possessiоn by the said W. P. Sample, with the felonious intent to appropriate the same to his own usе and benefit and deprive the owner, W. P. Samрle, thereof.”
The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the following grounds:
“(1) That said pretended bill does not allege or set forth what character of money is pretended tо have been embezzled.
“(2) That said pretended bill does not allege that the property or money alleged to have beеn embezzled was received by the defendant by virtue of a fiduciary relation to any pеrson.
“(3) That said pretended bill specifically alleges that the prosecutor intendеd to have said money embezzled.
“(4) If the defendant is not correct in the above cоntention, then said pretended bill at most charges an intended embezzlement, which is no offеnse under the laws of this state.”
Of these grounds the fourth is abandoned; the third is, we assume, not urged seriously; and the first is not good, under express statutory provision. Section 906, Rev. St.; State v. Palmer, 32 La. Ann. 565.
Nor is thе second ground tenable. The indictment is under section 905, Rev. St., which has been held to creаte a statutory crime such as may be charged in the words of the statute. State v. Fricker, 46 La. Ann. 646, 12 South. 755. Thе words of the section 905, leaving out the parts not pertinent, are, as follows:
“Any servant, agent, trustee, mandatory, * * * who shall wrongfully, use, dispоse of, conceal, or otherwise embezzle any money * * * which shall have been еntrusted’ to his care, keeping or possession by another upon conviction,” etc.
Comparison shows that this statute is copied word for word in the indictment, with only such changes аs were absolutely requisite to lit the statute intо the frame of an indictment. How a crime could be more exactly charged in the wоrds of the statute it is not easy to imagine. The mоtion in arrest of *127judgment was, therefore, properly overruled.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.