State v. Ward

Citations

• 96 Wash. 550
• 165 P. 794
• 1917 Wash. LEXIS 1152

Syllabus

<p>Embezzlement— Requisites — • Intent — Statutes—• Evidence. Intent is the gist of larceny by embezzlement, under Rem. Code, § 2601, defining larceny of property in the possession of an agent “who, with intent to deprive the owner thereof,” appropriates the same to his own use; and any fact intending to prove or disprove intent is admissible in evidence.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Intent—Admissibility. Upon the prosecution of an attorney for the embezzlement of the proceeds of a mortgage sent to him for collection, which he dealt with as his own on the claim that he had traded another mortgage for it, it is admissible, upon the issue as to his good faith and intent, to show the circumstances of his transfer of the, other mortgage to a bank and the arrangement he made with the bank for raising money to send to his client.</p> <p>Same. In such case, it is admissible to show the statement of the client to a third person that he had made a trade with the accused for the mortgage, and at that time gave a receipt in full settlement of all claims; since it is a statement against pecuniary interest, and shows consent to the appropriation.</p> <p>Same — Instructions—Intent. Under Rem. Code, § 2601, making intent to deprive the owner of property the gist of a charge of embezzlement, it is prejudicial error to give an instruction to the jury making unlawful appropriation a crime without any intent to deprive the owner of property; and the word “unlawfully” in such an instruction is not the equivalent of felonious or fraudulent intent.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Instructions. In a prosecution for larceny by embezzlement, it is prejudicial error to refuse a proper instruction framed with reference to the circumstances of the case on trial, although the court covered the matter in an abstract statement in the language of the statute defining the offense.</p>