Case ID: iowa_113/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waterman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Iowa, Appellant, v. L. R. Maxwell.
    Embezzlement: venue. Where a salesman, required to collect for articles sold, and report such sales and to make settlements with the office of his employer in P. County, made sales in other counties, collected the price, and without reporting it, converted the money, in a prosecution for embezzlement in P. County, it was error to direct a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that, the offense having been committed in another county, the court had no jurisdiction, since, as defendant’s obligation was to account to his employer in P. county the venue was properly laid there.
    
      Appeal from Polls District Court. — How. S. F. Prouty, Judge.
    Wednesday, April 10, 1901.
    Dependant was indicted by tbe grand jury of Polk ■county for embezzlement, and in due course of time put upon trial. After tbe state had rested its case, and some, if not all, tbe evidence for tbe defense bad been introduced, tbe trial judge, on bis own motion, instructed tbe jury to return a verdict of not guilty, giving as a reason that, tbe offense being shown not to have been committed in Polk county, tbe court bad no jurisdiction. Such a verdict was returned. Tbe state appeals.
    
    Reversed.
    
      Milton Remley, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van yiecls, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.
    No appearance for defendant.
   Waterman, J.

The United Typewriter & Supplies Company was a concern located in Des Moines, and engaged in tbe sale of typewriting machines. Defendant was in its employ, under an oral contract, on a salary, his duty being to sell machines, which were shipped to him, as he directed, from Des Moines. He was to collect for machines so sold, and report such sales to, and make settlements with, the Des Moines office, in Polk county. This is the undisputed testimony. It further appears that defendant sold certain machines in counties other than Polk, collected the price, and, without reporting the same, converted the money to his own use. The case of State v. Hengen, 106 Iowa, 711 is on all fours with the one at bar, and this court there held that jurisdiction to try the defendant was in the county in which he had agreed to account to his employer. The question is quite fully discussed in that case, and many authorities are reviewed. We do not feel justified' in again examining the matter. That case is decisive of the one at bar. The trial court had juristietion, and the issue of fact should have been left to the jury. — Reversed.