People v. Ward

California Court of Appeal

People v. Ward

111 P. 265, 14 Cal. App. 143, 1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 136

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 19, 1910

DocketCrim. No. 161.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 P. 265 (People v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ward, 111 P. 265, 14 Cal. App. 143, 1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, P. J.

The information charged defendant with the crime of embezzlement, the jury found him guilty, and his motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment of conviction and an order denying such new trial defendant appeals.

The only contention presented is that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the verdict. An examination of such record develops a decided conflict in the evidence. The jury, however, accepted as true the statements of the prosecuting witness, and the court, upon the motion for a new trial, justified this action upon the part of the jury. It is not the province of this court to disturb such conclusion if any evidence in the record warrants the same.

We are further of opinion that an examination of the record establishes that defendant obtained possession of money and personal property belonging to the prosecuting witness under an agreement that the same should be held only as security for the faithful performance of certain duties connected with a contract of employment entered into between the parties; that thereafter, upon the termination of such employment, defendant refused to return the same or any part thereof, and appropriated such money and personal property to his own use. The crime of embezzlement, as defined by section 503 of the Penal Code, was thus made out. The verdict, in our opinion, was a righteous one and should be sustained.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

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

ALLEN, P. J.

The information charged defendant with the crime of embezzlement, the jury found him guilty, and his motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment of conviction and an order denying such new trial defendant appeals.

The only contention presented is that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the verdict. An examination of such record develops a decided conflict in the evidence. The jury, however, accepted as true the statements of the prosecuting witness, and the court, upon the motion for a new trial, justified this action upon the part of the jury. It is not the province of this court to disturb such conclusion if any evidence in the record warrants the same.

We are further of opinion that an examination of the record establishes that defendant obtained possession of money and personal property belonging to the prosecuting witness under an agreement that the same should be held only as security for the faithful performance of certain duties connected with a contract of employment entered into between the parties; that thereafter, upon the termination of such employment, defendant refused to return the same or any part thereof, and appropriated such money and personal property to his own use. The crime of embezzlement, as defined by section 503 of the Penal Code, was thus made out. The verdict, in our opinion, was a righteous one and should be sustained.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 P. 265, 14 Cal. App. 143, 1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ward-calctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack