State v. Foster
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mills District Court. 1. The'statute (Code § 2619) makes certain acts of embezzlement, &c., larceny, and it is essential to constitute larceny that the act should be done and charged to have been done feloniously, Whart. Am. Cr. Law 198; Bouv. Law Die. “Feloniously,” 561; Archibald Cr.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mills District Court. 1. The'statute (Code § 2619) makes certain acts of embezzlement, &c., larceny, and it is essential to constitute larceny that the act should be done and charged to have been done feloniously, Whart. Am. Cr. Law 198; Bouv. Law Die. “Feloniously,” 561; Archibald Cr. Pr. & PL 47. 2. The indictment does not charge that the property was converted by the defendant to his own use “without the consent of hié employer,” and no offence under the statute is charged, without such an averment; Code § 2619; Whart, Am. Cr. Law 185 to 191.
1Opinion of the CourtLowe, C. J.
Under section 2619 of the Code, the defendant was convicted upon a charge of embezzlement, and one of the errors complained of we think is well assigned. It relates to the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment, for the reason that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offence.
That part of the above section under which the indictment was framed reads as follows : “Or of [meaning if] any person over the age of sixteen years embezzle and fraudulently convert to his own use, or take and secrete with in" tent to convert to his own use, without the consent of his…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. LarueWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1925
- Williamstown Creamery Ass'n v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Case v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1877
- State v. BrandtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875