The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1875-09-17

crime u created By and ds6ned IN the
statute cltsd In tho oplaiOn q the mo
joFity. The fActs 70 support this charge
a,e u the nrst count couoteely stated
and ahow |, the o6lclAl character 81
oofendant; :, that 10 wee charged with
~ custody Of public money ) that he
nd In bic poeeeeslon - IN Oiic0r sum
o. money named 4 that without ~.
thorily Of Law 10 ala unlswfully loan
= sum uamed. In the second count Il
10 averred that he did uulawfully and
leloniously convert sum Of money
named 10 hls own use. The fACls hare
alleged constitute the crime Of embex.
slement; nothing 10 wanting 20 snow
the crime - II Il defined IN our statute.
There 10 not slnglc conclusion OF law
avsrred every allegation 10 Of fast aud
ths whole i ! concise, direct and cor
tain statement Of tho offence. The do.
fsndant u charged With smbesslcmont
The orime u alleged to have been com.
mitted In the 6rst oount BY ioauing the
money OF tho state without auth GRITTY Of
law, Ii the second count by unlawtully
appropriating tho money % his own
nee.
The crime Of defendant, embexsle.
msnt, - alleged In the first court, con.
sisted ID loAning, without authority Of
law, the money Of The s,atc--the act OF
loanine was 0ne criminal act. i Was
not unlawful because tho transaction
resulted In injury TO another person or
bNcauae Of necessity another must have
sustained TO defendant tho relation Of :
borrower. IO unlawfulnese oOasiatcd
ID the illegal use Of tho money. The
borrower was not injured; 10 may
have, In NO way, participated In the un.
lawful acts and Intentions Of defendant,
for he may have had no knowledge that
tho law Wa being violated. He was,
therefore, In NO way connected with
the crime. know Of no legal princi.
pie requiring his name 10 % sst out In
the indictment.
In my opinion the Gases cited b. the
chief Justice In his opinion tail 70 aup-
port his position thas tho omission 81
the name OF the borrower ID fatal do.
feet In tho indictment. In no plead.
ing, either Ia civil or criminal oases, II
tho bare allegation Of fraud without
specifications 81 the oct charged % b
fraudulent sufIlolent. The charge Of
''making revolt" like that Of fraud, 10
OUT y 0OU0i0UuOU IbUW 10CtUs AD00 ~
precisely like the charge 10 the indict-
msnt bslore q, that defendant u guilty
% ombesslemont. but this charge ID
the indictment 10 based upon tho facts
alleged, among which h the avorment
that defsudan( unlawfully loaned the
money. These remssks dispose Of the
pennsylvania cases cited ~ tho ohief
justice. Whatever 10 found In u. 8. "
Ross, Mann l6l, bearing upon tho point
IN question was moro 0lctum. The
question was not before the court. But
Il BY NO means supports tho position it
u cited % sustain. a charge % obtain.
Ing mouey under fAlse preseaees 10 or.
tAlnly like that Of fraud, ooaoluaion
bAsed upon lA0ts.
In State " McConky, 20 Iowa, 67l.
tho name u the party injured, Il was
hel0, should b ~ ont a. the indict.
menk The obvious reason which may
- given b that such person II connect
"a With one crime without injury 70
eome one there Would have beea no Of.
1oneo.
The ruling IN Allen 70 the state -
Iowa. al, d oorrecl, and. II my judy
menL nay b supported upon. moro
satistncsory reasons than the one given
b. The chici juslice. There cau y no
o0oneo Of selling Intoxicating liquors