Commonwealth v. King

Citations

• 35 Pa. Super. 454
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Embezzlement—Indictment—Act of March 31, 1860, sec. 113, P. L. 382 — Good character — Evidence.</p> <p>Where an indictment under sec. 113 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, charges in one count that the defendant converted or appropriated trust funds with intent tor defraud, and another count adds to the charge a failure to pay over on demand, the court may properly direct that the defendant shall be tried on both counts. The averment of refusal to pay on demand in one of the counts may be regarded as surplusage. In such a case, however, the commonwealth may prove demand and refusal to pay over as evidence of conversion to defendant’s own use with intent to defraud.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment undér sec. 113 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, the defendant cannot rebut the intent to defraud by showing possession and ownership of property of sufficient value to repay the sum alleged to have been embezzled.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for embezzlement defendant presented a point as follows: “ Evidence of good character is positive evidence, and may of itself by the creation of a reasonable doubt produce an acquittal.” The answer was: “Evidence of previous good character is to be regarded as substantive proof, and as such, evidence upon which a reasonable doubt of guilt may rest. It should be observed, however, that there comes a time in the life of every criminal when he commits his first offense and when he leaves the high plane upon which walks the upright, law-abiding citizen.” Held, that the answer, while not above criticism, was not ground for reversal.</p>