Skip to main content
· 3/15/1907

Richburger v. State

Citations

  • 90 Miss. 806
  • 44 So. 772

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law and Procedure. Embezzlement. Code 1906, § 1136 Indictment. Language of statute.</p> <p>An indictment of a bank officer for embezzling money belonging to the bank, predicated of Code 1906, § 1136, defining the crime, is sufficient if it charge the offense in the language of the statute.</p> <p>2. Same. Synonymous words.</p> <p>In such case, the offense being a statutory one, the indictment need not be drawn in the exact words of the statute, if words synonymous with those employed in the statute to define the crime be used.</p> <p>3. Same. Care or possession.</p> <p>Under Code 1906, § 1136, making it a crime for any agent, clerk, officer, etc., to embezzle money which shall have come to his “care or possession,” an indictment charging that the defendant had the money under his care is sufficient, as would be one charging that he had the same in his “possession.”</p> <p>4. Same. Embezzlement of money. Amount. Value.</p> <p>An indictment for embezzling an amount of money need not charge the value of the money; the words “amount” and “value,” when applied to money, are synonymous.</p> <p>5. Same. Under defendant’s care. From whom received.</p> <p>An indictment for the embezzlement of money, charged to have been under defendant’s care, is not objectionable for failing to charge from whom he received it.</p> <p>6. Same. Appeal. Supreme court practice. Code 1906, § 4936. Questions not raised at trial.</p> <p>Under Code 1906, § 4936, providing that a conviction shall not be reversed for error not jurisdictional, if not made a ground of special exception in the trial court, a conviction of a cashier of a bank for embezzlement from the bank will not be reversed because the indictment charged him as cashier, and not as a director, agent, clerk, servant, or officer of a corporation, where the objection is presented for the first time on appeal.</p> <p>7. Same. Case: Indictment.</p> <p>The indictment, alleging that defendant on a specified day, being the cashi

Judges: Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.