State v. Dix
Citations
- 33 Wash. 405
- 74 P. 570
- 1903 Wash. LEXIS 534
Syllabus
<p>Ckiminal Law—Labceny by Embezzlement—Continuing Offense—Infobmation—Duplicity. An information charging a bank president with larceny by embezzlement “on the 15th day of August, 1900, and on divers dates and days from thence continuously to the 10th day of January, 1901,” of certain moneys and funds, amounting in the aggregate to a specified sum, is not demurrable for duplicity, but charges one continuing crime.</p> <p>Same—Bill op Particulars—Duplicity. A bill of particulars is not part of the information and even if it shows an intent to prove more than1' one crime, it does not render the information demurrable.</p> <p>Same. A bill of particulars showing that on various dates, specific sums were intrusted to the president of a bank, and that on a certain date thereafter he failed to account for the respective sums or any part thereof, doe$ not indicate that more than one offense was intended to be proved under an information charging the embezzlement of the aggregate amount on divers days and dates continuously during the period specified.</p> <p>Embezzlement—Conspiracy Between Officers op Bank—Sufficiency of Proof. Where letters, books and declarations of the accused’s associates are received under a promise to prove a conspiracy to embezzle the funds of a bank, there is sufficient prima facie evidence of the conspiracy to make the testimony admissible where it appears that none of the parties had any means, that the banks purchased by them were insolvent to the knowledge of all, that they used the deposits of one to pay the debts contracted for the purchase of the others, and solicited deposits representing that the banks were solvent, that the money was taken by defendant with the knowledge of his associates, and the funds were embezzled when the opportunity arose, and accused’s associates were in communication with him while he was a fugitive from justice.</p> <p>Same—Evidence of Insolvency of the Bank. In a prosecution against a bank president for the embez
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- allowing a single aggregated charge for an ongoing embezzlement scheme
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mount
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. ViningCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1970-05-26· cited 57×
- State v. MermisCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2001-04-09· cited 24×
- State v. RayWashington Supreme Court· 1911-03-27· cited 21×
- State v. LeonardWashington Supreme Court· 1909-11-24· cited 13×
- State v. BooneWashington Supreme Court· 1911-10-13· cited 8×
- Farmer's Irrigation Co. v. KammSupreme Court of Colorado· 1913-09-15· cited 8×
- State of Washington v. Gary Bruce FarnworthCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2017-06-01· cited 4×
- Pueblo v. Rosario VegaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1958-07-31· cited 4×
- State v. FarnworthWashington Supreme Court· 2018-12-06· cited 3×
- State v. GarrisonWashington Supreme Court· 1949-09-01· cited 1×
- People v. PérezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1934-12-13
- People v. Rosario VegaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1958-07-31
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ReinhartOregon Supreme Court· 1895-01-14· cited 87×
- Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1886-03-09· cited 73×
- Ker v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1884-05-19· cited 60×
- Card v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1886-12-23· cited 52×
- Sellers v. DuganOhio Supreme Court· 1849-12-15· cited 48×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1856-06-15· cited 38×
- State v. McCannWashington Supreme Court· 1896-12-22· cited 21×
- Spokane & Idaho Lumber Co. v. LoyWashington Supreme Court· 1899-10-09· cited 16×
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.