State v. Mathis

Citations

• 106 La. 263

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In determining the competency of a witness as an expert, called to give the result of his examination of the books and accounts of a defaulting Parish Treasurer-, much discretion is allowed the trial judge, and his ruling that the witness is sufficiently qualified as an expert to testify will not be disturbed where nothing appears to show error.</p> <p>2. Objection to the parol testimony of an expert, who had examined the books, as to the results of his examination, on the ground that the books themselves are the best evidence of the facts sought to be elicited, is not tenable.</p> <p>3. Where written receipts for money paid over are lost or destroyed and cannot be found after diligent search, parol testimony is competent to prove the amounts so paid over.</p> <p>4. It is not necessary to allege in an indictment for embezzlement from whom the money was received.</p> <p>5. The question of time, in its bearing upon the charge of embezzlement, is one for the jury, and an objection to testimony relating thereto is properly overruled on the ground that it goes to the effect to be given to the evidence rather than to its admissibility.</p> <p>6. The file mark of the Clerk of the Court on the report of the grand jury sufficiently identifies it.</p> <p>7. A jury’s verdict of conviction, thus showing their finding of the fact of embezzlement, will not be set aside because of the absence of formal demand upon the embezzler for the return of the funds prior to prosecution.</p> <p>8. Matters relating to continuances, delays to obtain the presence of witnesses, the alleged surprise of the applicant for the delay, etc., are in the just discretion of the trial judge, and this court must be satisfied that there has been an abuse of such discretion before it is warranted In Interfering.</p>