Compton v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; 1. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. Embezzlement being purely a statutory offense, no offense is stated if there is no statute covering the particular charge in the indictment. In this case section 1837 of Kirby’s Digest could not be applicable because that statute does not apply to public officers, nor agents of any public or municipal corporation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; 1. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. Embezzlement being purely a statutory offense, no offense is stated if there is no statute covering the particular charge in the indictment. In this case section 1837 of Kirby’s Digest could not be applicable because that statute does not apply to public officers, nor agents of any public or municipal corporation. The term “incorporated company” applies only to private corporations. 22 N. Y. 243. Even if it be held to apply to an officer of a public corporation, still, under…
1Opinion
ON REHEARING.
Opinion delivered January 22, 1912.
Hart, J.
It is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that the- language of section 1837 of Kirby’s Digest plainly precludes the idea that its provisions were intended to extend to others than clerks, apprentices, servants, employees, agents and attorneys, of private persons and corporations and to like employees of incorporated companies Immediately following the phrase “or any person employed in any such capacity” is the following: “who shall embezzle or convert to his own use, * * * without the consent of his master or employer, any…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. GallagherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Wallis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- State v. . CostinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Settles v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909