State v. Downer

Citations

• 68 Wash. 672
• 123 P. 1073
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1351

Syllabus

<p>Embezzlement — Evidence—Sueeiciency. There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of larceny by embezzlement, where it was admitted that the defendant, employed as a bookkeeper, took small sums from a cash drawer, secreting the fact by the execution of a note charged off to profit and loss, which he kept in his possession, and he claimed that he returned the money secretly and destroyed the note, while his employer testified that he had not returned any part of the money.</p> <p>Appeal — Preservation oe Grounds — Objections. Error cannot be predicated upon the reception of evidence to which no objection was made below.</p> <p>Embezzlement — Evidence—Other Oeeenses — Admissibility. Upon a prosecution of a bookkeeper for embezzlement, in which the defendant testified that he had subsequently returned the money in small amounts without showing on his books where the money came from, making his cash more at times than the books showed, it is proper on cross-examination to ask if certain persons had not paid him money which he had not credited, even if it did show other offenses, as it tended to explain how the cash came to overrun.</p> <p>Same. Upon a prosecution of embezzlement by a bookkeeper, evidence of other offenses than the one charged is admissible, where it tended to show a general scheme or system adopted in keeping his accounts in furthering his embezzlement.</p>