State v. Patterson
Citations
- 66 Kan. 447
- 71 P. 860
- 1903 Kan. LEXIS 80
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Criminal Practice — Irrelevant Matter in Information. It is not absolutely essential that irrelevant matter, ordered to be disregarded, should be obliterated from an information, or that the information be redrafted, when such matter consists of consecutive clauses whose emasculation does not confuse the remaining charge, and the record furnishes the means of applying the order so that its precise effect is disclosed.</p> <p>2. Embezzlement — City Officer — Allegation of Intent. Thestatute not having added in specific words an intent to defraud to the description of the crime of embezzlement by an officer of a city, and having left such intent to be derived from the words “embezzle or convert to his own use,” intent to defraud need not be averred in specific words in an information for such crime.</p> <p>3. -Insufficient Plea in Abatement. An allegation in a plea in abatement, that the defendant “has never had any preliminary examination as required by law for the offense charged,” states a conclusion of law and not an issuable fact.</p> <p>4. - Insufficient Plea in Bar — Former Acquittal of Forgery. In a criminal action against a city treasurer for embezzling and fraudulently converting to his own use money of the city which came into his hands by virtue of his office, a demurrer is properly sustained to a plea alleging the acquittal of the defendant of the charge of forging entries in his books of account with intent to defraud the city; and objections to the introduction in evidence of the defendant’s books containing such entries, and to testimony regarding transactions of the city to which such entries were ascribed, were properly overruled.</p> <p>5. - Money Collected from Liquor-sellers. In an action of embezzlement against a city treasurer for the fraudulent conversion of money which came into his hands by virtue of his office, it is no defense that he collected such money from persons engaged in unlawful traffic in intoxi
Judges: Burch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. ScofieldCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1968-03-22· cited 44×
- State v. MicheauxSupreme Court of Kansas· 1987-12-11· cited 35×
- State v. MellenbergerOregon Supreme Court· 1939-11-14· cited 32×
- State v. CorySupreme Court of Kansas· 1973-03-03· cited 27×
- State v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-05-09· cited 26×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1921-06-11· cited 20×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Kansas· 1987-07-17· cited 17×
- State v. WoodburySupreme Court of Kansas· 1931-01-10· cited 16×
- Wiebe v. HudspethSupreme Court of Kansas· 1947-05-03· cited 15×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas· 1937-11-04· cited 12×
- State v. EllisSupreme Court of Kansas· 1963-12-07· cited 8×
- State v. WasingerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1931-05-09· cited 6×
- State ex rel. Weltmer v. MooreSupreme Court of Kansas· 1933-04-08· cited 2×
- People v. CharlesVirgin Islands· 1929-10-01· cited 1×
- City of Wichita v. Rock Island Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1904-02-06
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-09-27· cited 42×
- Gilliam v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 40×
- Miller v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1879-06-26· cited 30×
- State v. O'BrienTennessee Supreme Court· 1894-11-10· cited 28×
- Krug v. DavisIndiana Supreme Court· 1882-11-15· cited 26×
- State v. . Cross and WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1888-09-05· cited 19×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1899-10-07· cited 19×
- Bales v. StateWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1868-07-15· cited 17×
- Kiewert v. RindskopfWisconsin Supreme Court· 1879-01-15· cited 17×
- Daniels v. BarneyIndiana Supreme Court· 1864-05-15· cited 17×
- Woodward v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-09-24· cited 17×
- State v. HewesSupreme Court of Kansas· 1899-07-08· cited 14×
- State v. LittschkeOregon Supreme Court· 1895-05-04· cited 12×
- Alexander v. BarkerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1902-02-08· cited 11×
- State v. ShaddSupreme Court of Missouri· 1883-10-15· cited 11×
- Placer County v. AstinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1857-07-01· cited 7×
- Hardy v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas· 1901-05-11· cited 4×
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.