Legal Opinion
State v. Alford
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided June 8, 1914No. 20603PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington; J. B. Lancaster, Judge. Jack Alford was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSommeryille, J.
On the trial of defendant for embezzlement, objections ' were sustained, on the ground of irrelevancy, to testimony going to show that he (the defendant) had made an offer of settlement with his principal, before the bill of indictment was found.
There was no error in the ruling of the trial judge. The offense of • embezzleipent, .like that of larceny, is of that nature, which the public takes notice of as injurious to itself. 1 Bishop’s Crim. Law, par. 232.
Mr. Bishop says in paragraph 233:
“Nothing can be more purely a tort to the individual alone than a simple larceny, where there is no…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TenneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- State v. LeichamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- State v. PrattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Home Lumber Co. v. HartmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wendel v. MiazzaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1922