People v. Neyce

Citations

• 86 Cal. 393
• 24 P. 1091
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1039

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Embezzlement — Information — Description of Trust Capacity. — Where the facts constituting the crime of embezzlement are fully stated in the information, such information is sufficient, although the accused is not called in the information “bailee,” “trustee,” or “ agent,” or formally put into any of the classes named in the sections of the code which define embezzlement.</p> <p>Id.—Agency — Ownership of Property Embezzled.—If the evidence tends to show that the defendant received the embezzled money from the person described in the information as the owner of the property as his agent, and that question is submitted to the jury, the judgment will not be reversed because there is evidence tending to prove that the money belonged to another person.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence — Prior Acts of Embezzlement. — Upon the trial of one accused of embezzlement, testimony is admissible which tends to prove previous acts of embezzlement similar to the one charged in the information, and against the same person.</p> <p>Appeal — Error without Prejudice — Bill of Exceptions—Unanswered Questions. — Where a bill of exceptions merely shows that the respondent asked certain questions of certain witnesses, to which appellant made certain objections, which were overruled, and appellant excepted, but it is not shown whether the answers to the questions were favorable or unfavorable to appellant, or that they were answered at all, the alleged errors in ruling will not be considered on appeal.</p>