Legal Opinion

People v. Neyce

California Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1890No. 20671PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

— The defendant was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals from the judgment, and an order denying a new trial.

1. The objections raised by the demurrer and motion in arrest of judgment to the sufficiency of the information are not well taken. The main point here made is, that appellant is not called in the information “ bailee,” “trustee,” or “agent,” or formally put into any of the classes named in the sections of the code which define embezzlement. But facts constituting the crime were fully stated, and that being so, it was not necessary to designate the appellant by any particular name…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. WhalenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. People v. CoblerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. People v. SteffnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API