Riley v. State
Citations
- 32 Tex. 763
Syllabus
<p>1— An indictment for embezzlement laid the ownership of the money in an Express Company. The proof showed that the money was not the property of the Express Company, but belonged to bankers who had bailed it to the Express Company for transportation to a distant point. Held? that the Express Company had a qualified property as bailees, on which this kind of felony might be committed, and that the proof sustained the-allegation of ownership in the Company.</p> <p>2— On a charge of embezzlement of coined money, it is not necessary to allege and prove the particular denomination of the several coins composing the amount. And if the indictment do allege the denomination of the gold coins, proof of the embezzlement of gold coin of equal aggregate value, without evidence of the denomination of any of the coins, will suffice when the nature of the case precludes the identification of the pieces.</p> <p>3— The prisoner, a messenger of an Express Company, received from it a sum of money to be delivered by him to distant consignees; he reported the money stolen from him en route, but gave no reasonable account of the pretended theft. Held, that these facts raised a presumption that he had appropriated the money to his own use ; and this presumption, if not sufficiently countervailed to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, warranted the jury to find him guilty of embezzlement. A contradictory and incredible account of the matter given by the prisoner, serves only to strengthen the presumption against him.</p> <p>4— Embezzlement is nothing more than a species of theft, and is subject to the same law of trial or rules of practice. (On motion for rehearing.)</p> <p>5— The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are, by its own express injunction, (Paschal’s Digest, Art. 2491,) to be liberally construed to the end of preventing, suppressing and punishing crime; and the courts must construe those provisions in conformity with that injunction, 'howmuchsoever it may invert
Judges: Lindsay
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-07-07· cited 35×
- Meachem v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 18×
- State v. BrooksTexas Supreme Court· 1874-07-01· cited 14×
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Missouri· 1951-06-11· cited 9×
- Parchman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1877-07-01· cited 1×
- Griffin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1878-07-01
- Vincent v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1881-07-01
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.