Commonwealth v. Vis

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Appellant was convicted of fraudulently converting to his own use prosecutor’s money within the sense prohibited by the Act of May 18, 1917, P. L. 241. He testified in defense that he and the prosecuting witness were partners in what he called “a bootlegging business.” There was evidence from which the jury may have found that the prosecuting witness gave $12,000 to appellant, which appellant agreed he would expend for whiskey for the prosecutor, but which he fraudulently retained instead of disbursing as he had agreed. In Com. v. MacDonald, 74 Pa. Superior Ct. 357, we held…