Poole v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Poole v. State

192 So. 429, 29 Ala. App. 118, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 59

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 28, 1939

Docket4 Div. 524.

StatusPublished

This text of 192 So. 429 (Poole 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

Poole v. State, 192 So. 429, 29 Ala. App. 118, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 59 (Ala. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

*119 RICE, Judge.

It is without dispute that appellant, as the agent of “I. E.” (or “J. E.” — the initials are used indiscriminately by the parties) Smith and Bronie Smith, took a check 'for $75 endorsed to and belonging to them, and one Dykes — but they being rightfully in possession of Dykes’ part — drawn on the Bank of Malone at Malone, Florida, to get it “cashed” and bring back -to them at Dothan, Alabama, (where the check was delivered to appellant) the proceeds. And that appellant did go to Malone, Florida, get the check cashed, and come back to Dothan on the same day; but that, after returning to Dothan, he absconded with the money.

This prosecution and conviction for embezzlement followed.

The evidence — undisputed as noted — furnished ample basis upon which the jury might find, as they did, that appellant brought the money back from Florida to Dothan with him, and then converted it to his own use. See the adequate discussion of the constituents of the offense charged, in Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585.

The fact that Dykes owned arr interest in the proceeds- of the check entrusted by the Smith boys to appellant was no bar to appellant’s conviction — -it being noted above that the Smiths had the rightful possession of said check. Barr v. State, 10 Ala.App. 111, 65 So. 197.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*119 RICE, Judge.

It is without dispute that appellant, as the agent of “I. E.” (or “J. E.” — the initials are used indiscriminately by the parties) Smith and Bronie Smith, took a check 'for $75 endorsed to and belonging to them, and one Dykes — but they being rightfully in possession of Dykes’ part — drawn on the Bank of Malone at Malone, Florida, to get it “cashed” and bring back -to them at Dothan, Alabama, (where the check was delivered to appellant) the proceeds. And that appellant did go to Malone, Florida, get the check cashed, and come back to Dothan on the same day; but that, after returning to Dothan, he absconded with the money.

This prosecution and conviction for embezzlement followed.

The evidence — undisputed as noted — furnished ample basis upon which the jury might find, as they did, that appellant brought the money back from Florida to Dothan with him, and then converted it to his own use. See the adequate discussion of the constituents of the offense charged, in Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585.

The fact that Dykes owned arr interest in the proceeds- of the check entrusted by the Smith boys to appellant was no bar to appellant’s conviction — -it being noted above that the Smiths had the rightful possession of said check. Barr v. State, 10 Ala.App. 111, 65 So. 197.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 429, 29 Ala. App. 118, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-state-alactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack