State v. Kortgaard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The part of the charge referred to in the opinion, under the discussion of the ninth assignment of error, and found in folios 135 to 137 of the paper book, is as follows: “There isn’t any such taking of notes in this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The part of the charge referred to in the opinion, under the discussion of the ninth assignment of error, and found in folios 135 to 137 of the paper book, is as follows: “There isn’t any such taking of notes in this case. He only took up notes and substituted other notes for them; but if you find from the evidence that there was no such intent at the time that the original notes were negotiated, and the defendant received money, but at the time that he substituted these…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The defendant was indicted, under subdivision 2, § 415, of the Penal Code (G. S. 1894, § 6709, subd. 2), for embezzling $23,000 of the money of the State Bank of Minneapolis. The alleged embezzlement was charged in the indictment to have been committed April 6, 1893. The state served a bill of particulars, specifying the items claimed to have been embezzled as follows: April 6, *91893, $10,000; April 28, 1893, $10,000; June 10, 1893, $3,000, — total, $23,000. A trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged, and that the amount embezzled was $13,000. Upon a motion for a new trial, the court held…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Main v. OienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
3Cited by21 opinions
- People v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Raine v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
- People v. KolowichMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- State v. LarsonWashington Supreme Court · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.