State v. Larmer

Citations

• 30 Del. 279
• 7 Boyce 279
• 105 A. 789
• 1918 Del. LEXIS 51

Syllabus

<p>1. Embezzlement—Question for Jury.</p> <p>In prosecution of defendant street car conductor for embezzlement of certain fares, the guilt or innocence held, under the evidence, for the jury.</p> <p>2. Embezzlement—Definition.</p> <p>Embezzlement is where one fraudulently appropriates the property of another intrusted to his care, or fraudulently misapplies it, instead of applying it to its proper and authorized purpose.</p> <p>3. Embezzlement—Elements of Offense.</p> <p>In prosecution of street car conductor for embezzlement of fares, it was necessary to prove that property actually came into the custody of defendant, and while in his custody that he embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted it to his own use.</p> <p>4. Embezzlement—Of All Articles Alleged.</p> <p>In prosecution of street car conductor for embezzlement of fares, it was unnecessary to prove embezzlement or fraudulent misapplication or conversion of all articles alleged.</p> <p>5. Embezzlement—Intent to Defraud—Evidence.</p> <p>In prosecution of street car conductor for embezzlement of fares, the intent to defraud was necessary to be shown, but could be proved either by direct evidence or by the circumstances from which it might be inferred.</p>