Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0798-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 821
    HERRICK v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 8th District, Cuyahoga County
    No. 1399.
    Decided Nov. 5, 1923
    103. EMBEZZLEMENT.
    A shipping clerk who wrongfully takes goods irl his custody, not guilty of embezzlement but Iarcenjl —Indictment for both embezzlement and larcenj] should show goods taken to be same in each coufi
    Attorneys — R. R. Cheeks, for Herrick; M. C. Stan; ton, Pros., for State.
   VICKERY, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Epitomized Opinion

Herrick was a shipping clerk and received good; and sent them out for his employer. He was in dieted for embezzling some of the goods, of the valu of several hundred dollars. There was also a coun charging him with larceny. He was convicted o. embezzlement in Cuyahoga Common Pleas. In re| versing the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:

1. As the record did not show that the propert; alleged in the first count to have been -embezzled was the same as that he was charged with stealing! a case of larceny could not be made out.

2. That the record shows that Herrick was in n sense in possession of the goods, but was merelj custodian of them, and that under the authority o 90 OS. 352, a very similar case, he could be con| victed of larceny only and that the conviction unde the first count was wrong, and must be reversed