People v. Klee

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 957
• 69 P. 696
• 1902 Cal. LEXIS 884

Syllabus

<p>Embezzlement by Bailee—Evidence.—Penal Code, Section 507, makes it embezzlement for one to convert property intrusted to him as bailee. Section 511 provides that, on any indictment for embezzlement, it is a sufficient defense that the property was appropriated openly and under a bona fide claim of title, though such claim is untenable. On a prosecution for the embezzlement of a mare sold by defendant while in his possession, prosecutor testified that he intrusted her to defendant to have her for her keep until demanded; that prosecutor stated a price that he would sell the mare for, but that, in answer to a statement by defendant that he might buy the mare, prosecutor said that that would be “an after-consideration.” Defendant testified that prosecutor stated that he might buy the mare at any time for $55. Defendant did not inform prosecutor of the sale of the mare, or remit any of the alleged price. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.</p> <p>Embezzlement by Bailee — Intent. — On a Prosecution under Penal Code, section 507, making it embezzlement for one to convert property intrusted to him as a bailee, the question whether it was error to fail to instruct that defendant must have “feloniously” intended to appropriate the property was immaterial on appeal; the jury having been instructed that the test to be applied for determining the guilt or innocence of defendant was whether he intended to permanently deprive prosecutor of his property.</p> <p>Embezzlement by Bailee—Instruction.—On a Prosecution under Penal Code, section 507, for the embezzlement of property by a bailee, the court instructed substantially in the language of Civil Code, section 1572, which defines “fraud.” Held, that though the section defines “fraud” within the meaning of the chapter relative to contracts, and had no application, there was no prejudice to defendant, the instruction being followed by one stating that the question was whether, defendant intended perma