People v. Murphy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, County of San Joaquin. The defendant was charged in the indictment with having been intrusted, in the county of San Joaquin, with a gold watch and chain by one Tyree, for her use, and with having, in said county, fraudulently embezzled and converted it to his own use, without the consent of said Tyree.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, County of San Joaquin. The defendant was charged in the indictment with having been intrusted, in the county of San Joaquin, with a gold watch and chain by one Tyree, for her use, and with having, in said county, fraudulently embezzled and converted it to his own use, without the consent of said Tyree. On the trial the prosecutrix testified that, in San Joaquin County, on Friday, the 30th day of July, 1875, she took a buggy ride with the defendant, and he asked her to loan him her gold ívatch and chain to wear to a ball Saturday evening, and to be returned to her…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
■ It is not disputed that the conversion of the watch and chain, whatever the character of that conversion, occurred not in the county of San Joaquin, where the appellant was convicted, but in the city and county of San Francisco. The offense is embezzlement in the fraudulent conversion of the property by the prisoner to his own use, or secreting it *379with the fraudulent intent upon his part to so convert it— under section five hundred and seven of the Penal Code.
It is true that the property alleged to have been embezzled was received by the prisoner from its owner…
2Cited by11 opinions
- People v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- State v. SerkauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- People v. MeserosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- State v. HoshorWashington Supreme Court · 1901
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.