Echols v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Bessemer City Court. Heard before Hon. William Jackson. From a conviction for embazzlement, Sam Echols appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bessemer City Court. Heard before Hon. William Jackson. From a conviction for embazzlement, Sam Echols appeals. The appellant was entitled to the affirmative charge as requested in writing upon two theories; 1st, no embazzlement was pleaded, and 2nd, no agency within the meaning of section 2868, Code 1907, was shown. — Pulliam v. The State, 78 Ala. 31; Hiudercr v. The State, 38 Ala. 419. The term, servant, clerk or employe, as used in the statute means that the relation between the parties are such that the employer has the right to order, demand, direct and control, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of embezzlement; the affidavit charging that he, “being an agent, servant, or clerk of affiant, embezzled or fraudulently converted to his own use money to about the amount of $18, or fraudulently secretes, with intent to convert to his own use,, or to the use of another, $18 in money which has come into his possession by virtue of his office or employment.” The evidence for the state, in its -strongest light against the defendant, is that the défendant, being a tailor, agreed to make a suit of clothes for the prosecutor for a certain amount of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pullam v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marks v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Blackwell v. KerchevalIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Spurlock v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- State v. CarrWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Hall v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.