Ex parte Hedley
California Supreme Court
The petitioner applied to be discharged on habeas corpus. On the 21st day of September, 1866, he was held to answer for the crime of embezzlement, by the Police Judge of the City and County of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
The petitioner applied to be discharged on habeas corpus. On the 21st day of September, 1866, he was held to answer for the crime of embezzlement, by the Police Judge of the City and County of San Francisco. The evidence showed that while acting as the agent of Wells, Fargo & Co. at Gold Hill, State of Nevada, he drew checks, as agent, on his employers at San Francisco, and by means thereof obtained money to a large amount, which he had his broker apply to the purchase of mining stock at San Francisco. He sustained losses in his mining speculations, and did not return the money to Wells,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Shafter, J.:
The petitioner is held to answer a charge of embezzlement. The offense is alleged to have been committed in this State, in the City and County of San Francisco. The facts, as they appear by the papers, are substantially as follows :
In 1863 the petitioner became the agent of Wells, Fargo & Co. at Gold Hill, Storey County, Nevada, which agency continued down to and during the month of May, 1866. While Hedley was such agent he drew telegraphic checks upon his principals at San Francisco in favor of his broker, William Burling, of that city. The checks were signed by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Hart v. GrangerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1814
- People v. San Francisco & San Jose RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by39 opinions
- People v. GallagherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- King v. Thierry S.California Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- State v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Agar v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.