Legal Opinion

State v. Bolin

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 31, 1892PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from Sowell Circuit Cowrt. — Hon. Joseph Cravens, Judge. (1) The indictment is sufficient under the statute. R. S. 1879, sec. 1326. (2) It is not necessary under that statute that the money should have come in possession of the defendant by virtue of his office. It is sufficient if he received it under color or pretense thereof. (3) It is sufficient to charge the money as public money. 62 Mo. 393; 59 Mo. 149; 78 Mo. 600.

1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.

The grand jury of Howell county preferred against the defendant an indictment for embezzlement as follows:

“The grand jurors for the state of Missouri, summoned from the body of Howell county, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire within and for the body of Howell county, upon their oaths present and charge that H. L. Bolin, late of the county aforesaid, on or about the twenty-eighth day of November, 1888, at and in the county of Howell and state of Missouri, being then and there an officer duly appointed and qualified under the laws of the state of Missouri, to-wit, being then and there a…

2Cited by10 opinions

Sherrick v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
Dickey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
In re HustonIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
Commonwealth v. BurnsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
Hartnett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909

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