Cephus v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cephus v. State

79 So. 197, 16 Ala. App. 499, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 190

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1918

Docket4 Div. 559.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 So. 197 (Cephus v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cephus v. State, 79 So. 197, 16 Ala. App. 499, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 190 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] There was evidence on the part of the state which, if believed, tended to show that the defendant was the agent of one Bruna McLeod for a particular purpose; that there was paid to the defendant by virtue of this agency the sum of $15; that the defendant did not use the money for the purpose contemplated, but fraudulently' converted it to her- own use. The foregoing constitutes embezzlement under our statutes. Pullam v. State, 78 Ala. 31, 56 Am. Rep. 21. It was shown that the transaction was in Barbour county. There being evidence to sustain the material ingredients of the offense as charged, the court did not err in refusing to give at the request of the defendant, the affirmative charge.

12] The fact that after the agency agreement, turning over the money under the agency, and the failure of the agent to use the money as directed, the agent promised to repay the $15 to the principal would not entitle the ' defendant to the affirmative charge. The crime had been completed, was against the state, and no individual would have the right to waive the prosecution.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAMFORD, J.

[1] There was evidence on the part of the state which, if believed, tended to show that the defendant was the agent of one Bruna McLeod for a particular purpose; that there was paid to the defendant by virtue of this agency the sum of $15; that the defendant did not use the money for the purpose contemplated, but fraudulently' converted it to her- own use. The foregoing constitutes embezzlement under our statutes. Pullam v. State, 78 Ala. 31, 56 Am. Rep. 21. It was shown that the transaction was in Barbour county. There being evidence to sustain the material ingredients of the offense as charged, the court did not err in refusing to give at the request of the defendant, the affirmative charge.

12] The fact that after the agency agreement, turning over the money under the agency, and the failure of the agent to use the money as directed, the agent promised to repay the $15 to the principal would not entitle the ' defendant to the affirmative charge. The crime had been completed, was against the state, and no individual would have the right to waive the prosecution.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 197, 16 Ala. App. 499, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cephus-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack