People v. Van Ewan

Citations

• 111 Cal. 144
• 43 P. 520
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 558

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Embezzlement—Ownership of Monet—Sale of Goods— Agency—Authority to Collect—Notice of Discharge—Variance. Where a defendant accused of the embezzlement of money had been the agent of a company, with authority to sell goods and collect bills, and had sold goods as such agent to the one named in the indictment as the owner of the money embezzled, and had collected the money from him at a time subsequent to his discharge from employment as such agent, there is no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, although the one to whom the goods were sold was not notified of the agent’s discharge, and could compel the company to credit him with the money. But if the defendant was in fact the agent of the company when the money embezzled was collected he could not be convicted under the indictment.</p> <p>Id.—Demand for Return of Money.—It is not necessary, in order to sustain a conviction for embezzlement of the money, as the property of the one from whom the collection was made by the defendant without authority after his discharge from employment, that such person should have made a demand on the defendant for the return of the money.</p> <p>Id.-*—Evidence op Other Embezzlements—Receipts op Money.—Evidence is admissible to show that the defendant charged with embezzlement had been guilty of other embezzlements from the company of which he had been the agent, and in connection with such proof, receipts of money given by the defendant to its other customers, though not sufficient of themselves to show embezzlement, are admissible in evidence on that issue.</p> <p>Id.—Re-examination — Evidence not Given on Cross-examination.— Where, upon- cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, a paper was presented to the witness by defendant’s counsel, who asked him to identify two items in it, but did not offer the paper or the items in evidence, it is erroneous to allow the prosecution on re-examination to offer the paper in evidence in explanation of the tw