People v. Paddleford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paddleford

272 A.D.2d 846

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Paddleford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Paddleford, 272 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the Chenango County Court of the crime of falsifying public records as Supervisor of the Town of Sherburne in Chenango County. The proof discloses that in' the year 1937 the sum of $3,000 was withdrawn from defendant’s account as supervisor. The withdrawal was made by defendant’s wife. The money was rédeposited in her name and that of her husband as copartners in a business enterprise. The wife repaid the amount in 1945 out of her own personal funds. She testified that defendant had no knowledge of what she had done. He gave like testimony. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the falsification, which was proven, was occasioned by any willful act or omission on the part of the defendant. On the record presented to us the finding of the jury is against the weight df the evidence. Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted. Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., taking no part.

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

Defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the Chenango County Court of the crime of falsifying public records as Supervisor of the Town of Sherburne in Chenango County. The proof discloses that in' the year 1937 the sum of $3,000 was withdrawn from defendant’s account as supervisor. The withdrawal was made by defendant’s wife. The money was rédeposited in her name and that of her husband as copartners in a business enterprise. The wife repaid the amount in 1945 out of her own personal funds. She testified that defendant had no knowledge of what she had done. He gave like testimony. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the falsification, which was proven, was occasioned by any willful act or omission on the part of the defendant. On the record presented to us the finding of the jury is against the weight df the evidence. Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted. Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paddleford-nyappdiv-1947.