Carter v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Criminal law. Larceny after trust. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1874. Anthony Carter”was indicted for the offense of larceny after a trust delegated, in this, that he “was entrusted by one John Mongin with four hundred and eighty melons of the value of ten cents each, the property of the said John Mongin, for the purpose of applying the same to the sole use and behoof of the said John Mongin.”
Read the full summary
Criminal law. Larceny after trust. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1874. Anthony Carter”was indicted for the offense of larceny after a trust delegated, in this, that he “was entrusted by one John Mongin with four hundred and eighty melons of the value of ten cents each, the property of the said John Mongin, for the purpose of applying the same to the sole use and behoof of the said John Mongin.” And, “after having been entrusted as aforesaid, failed to apply thes article aforesaid as directed, but wrongfully, feloniously, fraudulently, and without the consent of…
1Opinion of the Court
Trippe, Judge.
The statute makes the fraudulent conversion by a bailee of many kinds of property a criminal act, to-wit: money, notes, bonds, cotton, corn, horses, mules, etc. If the indictment charged that the defendant ivas entrusted with money, or a horse, which he fraudulently converted, it could not be sustained by proof that a bond, or cotton, had been so entrusted and converted. So.the same statute, Code section 4424, prescribes that when such things or articles have been entrusted to a person for divers different purposes, to be used by him in various specified ways therein defined,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Keys v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Sanders v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- McNish v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Hamby v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Hamby v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.