State v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wabasha county, Gould, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The eleventh assignment of error, referred to in the opinion, was as follows: “The court erred in instructing the jury as follows: And if his intent was to appropriate it to his own use, then he would be guilty, although he did not intend to defraud the bank.’ ”
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of larceny (embezzlement), as defined by G. S. 1894, § 6709, subd. 2. ,
The indictment alleged that the defendant, on June 29, 1895, being the president of the Merchants Bank of Lake City, and, as such, having in his possession, custody, and control — •
“A certain sum of money, to wit, nine thousand dollars, in lawful, current, and genuine money of the United States of America, then and there of the value of nine thousand dollars, a more particular description of which said money being to the grand jury unknown, and all of which said…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ker v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- State v. PearceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- State v. SauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Commonwealth v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- State v. NewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RichmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Secor v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Anderson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Rowe v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1924
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.