Commonwealth v. Foster
107 Mass. 221
Opinion
Under the instructions given them, the jury must have found that the defendant was an agent within the
statute, and embezzled his employer’s money. The notes given by him appear to have been given to answer the purpose of receipts, and not for the purpose of transferring to him any property in the notes received by him, or the money received by him on the sale of the notes. Commonwealth v. Stearns, 2 Met. 343 Commonwealth v. Libbey, 11 Met. 64.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Foster, 107 Mass. 221 (Mass. 1871).
107 Mass. 221 (Commonwealth v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Bovaird
95 A.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)
Dunkle v. State
124 So. 725 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Furber v. Dane
90 N.E. 859 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Foster v. State
43 A. 265 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1899)
Commonwealth v. Moore
44 N.E. 612 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
People v. Civille
5 N.Y. Crim. 530 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
State v. Witham
72 Me. 531 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1881)
State v. Barter
58 N.H. 604 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)
State v. Kent
22 Minn. 41 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1875)