People v. Belden

Citations

• 37 Cal. 51

Syllabus

<p>Distinction between Larceny and Embezzlement.—The chief distinction between larceny, as defined in section sixty of the Crimes and Punishments Act, and embezzlement, as defined in section seventy of the same Act, is that in the former case the guilty party has, and in the latter ease he has not, the possession of the property at the time of the commission of the offense.</p> <p>Idem—Embezzlement.—The provisions of the seventieth section of said Act were framed to comprehend only those eases in which property is intrusted to-servants, clerks, etc., by or for their masters, employers, etc.; and no cases fall within said section except where the servants, clerks, etc., have the custody or pos session at the time of the commission of the offense.</p> <p>Idem—Larceny.—B. was indicted and convicted of the larceny of two horses, tho property of M. At and before the commission of the alleged offense, B., who was in tho employ of M. for that purpose, performed general work in and about M.’s livery stable, from which, as charged, said horses had been stolon, and together with M. performed the labor in, and had charge of the stable and stock therein, including the stolen horses. Held, that said horses were, at said time, in the possession of M., and that B. had not such custody of them as to prevent his conviction for a larceny of the horses under an indictment therefor framed under the sixtieth section of the Crimes and Punishments Act.</p>