State v. White
Wisconsin Supreme Court
REPORTED from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. The case is stated in the opinion. The cause was submitted upon both sides on unsigned briefs. For the defendant it was contended, inter aUa, that the so-called bonds did not come into his possession in his capacity as an officer of the city. The law gave the comptroller no authority to take, receive or control them, and he had no duties in connection with them except to countersign them.
Read the full summary
REPORTED from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. The case is stated in the opinion. The cause was submitted upon both sides on unsigned briefs. For the defendant it was contended, inter aUa, that the so-called bonds did not come into his possession in his capacity as an officer of the city. The law gave the comptroller no authority to take, receive or control them, and he had no duties in connection with them except to countersign them. To warrant a conviction under sec. 4418, R. S., the defendant’s possession must have been acquired by authority given to him in his official capacity. 3…
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
The defendant, James White, was convicted in the circuit court of Milwaukee county upon an information against him for the embezzlement of eight certain *345negotiable bonds of the city of Milwaukee, of $1,000 each, and after such conviction the circuit court made a report to this court, under sec. 4721, R. S. The following is a copy of such report.
“ [Title, etc.]
“ The defendant was tried at the January term of said circuit court, on the charge of embezzling eight general city bonds of the city of Milwaukee, for the sum of $1,000 each, and was duly convicted. On the trial it appeared from the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bork v. . the People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- Vought v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. RabyWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Vought v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908