Rohde v. United States

Citations

• 34 App. D.C. 249
• 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5801

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law; Embezzlement; Beneficial Associations; Statutes.</p> <p>1. It is embezzlement, as defined by the D. C. Code, sec. 834 [31 Stat. at L. 1325, chap. 854], and not larceny, for the treasurer of an unincorporated association to wrongfully convert to liis own use money of the association intrusted to his possession as such treasurer.</p> <p>2. An unincorporated beneficial association, not organized for trade or profit, and which continues its existence regardless of changes in its membership, is not, as between its own members, a partnership, even though under certain conditions it may be held to be a partnership at the suit of others, by virtue of the principle of estoppel.</p> <p>3. In the prosecution of the treasurer of an unincorporated beneficial association for the embezzlement of its funds, under D. C. Code, sec. 834, which includes officers of “any association or incorporated company” among those who may be punished for the crime, it is no defense that the accused is a member of the association, and cannot, therefore, be convicted of embezzlement of a fund of which he is part owner, where it appears that he had, as a member, no assignable interest in the fund, or right of withdrawal in event of resignation, and also that the fund came into his possession by virtue of his office, and he had no right to pay out the whole or any portion of it except by an order passed at a meeting of the association.</p> <p>4. Where a penal statute is to be construed, it must, like other statutes, be -given a reasonable construction so as to avoid an absurd conclusion. (Following Fields v. United, States, 27 D. C. App. 433.)</p>