Hoffman v. State

I disagree with certain statements of the evidence made by the court. That disagreement goes to lack of detail and definiteness in most instances and will not be developed here.

I limit this dissent to two matters. The first is the complete lack of any evidence that the defendant converted or appropriated any gasoline or other property of the elevator company. There is a failure of proof of an essential element of the crime charged. The second is the construction which the court puts upon the 1915 amendment to what is now section 28-538, R. R. S. 1943.

The defendant in this case was the manager…