Commonwealth v. O'Malley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for embezzling seven bank-bills, of the denomination and value, respectively, two of ten dollars, three of five dollars, and one each of two dollars and one dollar.
Read the full summary
Indictment for embezzling seven bank-bills, of the denomination and value, respectively, two of ten dollars, three of five dollars, and one each of two dollars and one dollar. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., Bridget M’Donald testified that on March 2,1867, she was a servant in a family residing in Boston, and received from her employer, in payment of her wages, thirty-eight dollars in bank-bills; that the defendant went home with her to her employer’s house that evening, and, while there, asked her to lend him' a dollar; that she agreed to do so, and showed him a roll…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
We are of opinion that there was no evidence to sustain the indictment for embezzlement, and that the' conviction was wrong. The defendant had been previously acquitted of larceny upon proof of the same facts ; and it is therefore of great importance, to him, if the offence committed, if any, was larceny, that it should be so charged.
To constitute the crime of embezzlement, the property which the defendant is accused of fraudulently and feloniously converting to his own use must be shewn to have been entrusted to him, so that it was in his possession, and not in the possession of the owner.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. CallCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by18 opinions
- The People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- People v. PlumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1939
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.