Legal Opinion

People v. Bidleman

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1894No. 21147PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and' County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

Appellant is charged with the embezzlement of seven thousand four hundred and eighty-six dollars and sixty-three cents, the moneys of D. V. B. Plenarie, doing business under the firm name of E. Martin & Co., in the city and county of San Francisco, and was found guilty of the embezzlement of seven hundred and seventeen dollars and sixty-five cents, part of the sum charged in the information, and was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of four years. His motion for a new trial having been denied he appeals from the judgment and order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends that the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. GallagherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. People v. Lee Yune ChongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. People v. WaltersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. People v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Spottiswood v. WeirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. People v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. People v. EbanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. People v. TomaltyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  4. People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. State v. KeifeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1927

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API