Shannon v. State

1916 OK CR 99, 160 P. 1131, 12 Okla. Crim. 584, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 106
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 28, 1916
DocketNo. A-2114.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1916 OK CR 99 (Shannon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shannon v. State, 1916 OK CR 99, 160 P. 1131, 12 Okla. Crim. 584, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 106 (Okla. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, E. W. Shannon, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the district court of Grady County, on a charge of embezzlement, and his punishment fixed by judgment of the court at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for one year and one day. From the judgment of conviction in the trial court, the plaintiff in error prosecutes this appeal, and the principal ground upon which he relies for a reversal is that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law and to the evidence.

It appears that a corporation known as the Southwestern Wholesale Grocery Company, was organized at Chickasha, in 1908; that the plaintiff in error invested $5,000.00 in the capital stock; Henry Oberstein $5,000.00; H. B. Spencer $2,000.00; R. *585 L. Richards $1,000.00; C. M. Hollingsworth $2,000.00 and J. B. Harper $5,000.00. Harper was elected president and had charge of the management of the business. Plaintiff in error, Shannon, was elected secretary and treasurer and was also one of the active officers of the corporation.

At the beginning of business in October, 1908, certain of the officers and directors opened accounts between themselves and the corporation, among them the plaintiff in error. All of the merchandise and money drawn from the corporation by the plaintiff in error was charged to his account at the time the same was drawn. The salaries were credited to the respective accounts of those drawing them from time to time as the same became due.

It appears that the plaintiff in error drew the checks for the payment of all bills and accounts. The account between the corporation and the plaintiff in error was carried from the day the business was opened until it was closed, a period of three or four years. There is no irregularity in the account and no contention, so far as we can discern from the evidence, that any sum of money or any merchandise was ever taken from the corporation by the plaintiff in error, except such items as were charged to his account at the time taken.

When the business was finally dissolved, J. B. -Harper was appointed trustee to wind up its affairs. At the rime of the appointment of the trustee, the plaintiff in error was indebted to the corporation in a sum amounting to about $1,200.00. Harper, as trustee, took the note of the plaintiff in error in settlement of his account. The trustee was appointed the latter part of 1910 or the first part of 1911. In December, 1911, the trustee, Harper, died, and H. B. Spencer was appointed to succeed him. Spencer and Shannon were unfriendly. It appears that Shannon had participated in a meeting of the Board of Directors that ousted Spencer from the directorate.

During the year 1912, Spencer, Hollingsworth, and Richards, all of whom were original stockholders in the corporation, ap *586 peared before the grand jury and sought to have the plaintiff in error indicted, but the grand jury refused to indict him. About the same time, the county attorney of Grady County was consulted by these witnesses with the view of prosecuting the plaintiff in error. The county attorney refused to prosecute the plaintiff in error at the public expense. Later, however, the prosecution was instituted:

A short time prior to the dissolution of the business, the plaintiff in error, who had been connected with the same since it started, was ousted as manager and treasurer, and C. M. Hollings-worth, one of the prosecuting witnesses, was substituted in his stead. The plaintiff in error was continued as bookkeeper.

A review of the record impels one to the conclusion that this prosecution was resorted to solely for the -reason that the plaintiff in error failed to pay the $1,200.00 note due the corporation. At all times the books of the corporation showed the status of its affairs. The directors at all times knew, or should have known — it was their duty to know — the existence of its relationship between its customers and itself. The testimony given by the prosecuting witnesses indicates clearly that there was no effort on the part of the plaintiff in error at any time to mislead the Board of Directors or any officer or stockholder as to the facts, and neither of the prosecuting witnesses' pointed out a single transaction in his testimony which indicated that plaintiff in error, Shannon, was endeavoring to fraudulently appropriate the assets of the company to his own use and benefit. In fact, there is a total absence of the fraudulent intent required under the law to constitute the crime of embezzlement. The relation was clearly that of debtor and creditor. Extracts from, the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses clearly indicate that fact to our minds.

Witness Spencer, among other things, testified as follows:

“Q. What position have you held with the corporation yourself? A. Director. Q. What is your official position at this time ? A. I was appointed trustee to wind up the business, after *587 Mr. Harper’s death. Q. What position do you hold at this time? A. Trustee, appointed by the court. Q. What was Mr. Hollings-worth’s position with that corporation when he went in? A. We put him in there as manager and to oversee it. Q. Was this defendant employed there at that time? A. Yes, sir, he was. Q. At the time Mr. Hollingsworth went in as manager of the concern, from then on what was this defendant’s position there ? A. Bookkeeper. Q. At the time Mr. Hollingsworth went in there as manager were you a stockholder and director of that corporation? A. Yes, sir. Q. At that time, I will ask you-if this defendant, Er W. Shannon, as secretary and treasurer of that corporation, made a financial statement of that corporation to the Board of Directors ?. A. He did. Q. In which it showed the liabilities and the assets of the corporation? A. He did. Q. Mr. Spencer, have you any other record that shows a statement about that time to that corporation? A. I have a note in my possession given to J. B. Harper for $1,200.00. I don’t know what it was given for. Q. Where did you get that note? A. I found it in the papers I got from Mr. Harper. Q. Have you ever presented that note for payment? A. Yes, sir, I went to Oklahoma City to see Mr. Shannon about it and he said he could not pay anything on it. Q. At that time state whether or not he admitted or denied the execution of that note? A. He did not deny it, he just said he could not pay it. Q. How many times have you seen him on those occassions? A. I went there on but one occassion, may be twice. Q. Have you any other record which shows his standing with that corporation? A. There is a trial balance there he got off. Q. Who made it out? A. Mr. Shannon did, I suppose. He is the only one who had charge of the books. Q. Where did you get it? A. In the papers I got from Mr. Harper after his death. Q. Does that statement show- any indebtedness of this defendant, E. W. Shannon, to the Southwestern Wholesale Grocery Company? A. Yes, sir, an indebtedness of $1,200.00. Q. And Mr. Shannon got that up? A. Yes, sir, and there is a line drawn through it and says ‘note’. G. And when did you get it? A. After I was appointed trustee. Q. Mr. Spencer, have you any other statement here which shows his standing with that corporation about that time? A. At different times down to that date I have. Q.

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

Related

McAllister v. State
1953 OK CR 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1916 OK CR 99, 160 P. 1131, 12 Okla. Crim. 584, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-state-oklacrimapp-1916.