Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1892-06-09

other words, that he could not be guilty of en-
bezzlement until he had ceased to be state
treasurer, and failed to pay over to his success
sor the money due the state. Prosecutions an
der various statutes for failure to pay over
have no application to a like this State
VS.. Porter, 26 No, 20l.
To constitute enbezzlement under this in
dictment it was necessary to charge the official
character of defendant. his receipt of the mon
eys by virtue OF his Office as treasurer and his
fraudulent and fe'onious conversion thereof to
his own use. This the indictment does. His
failure to pay over to his successor is evidence
of embezzlement, but 1t is the fraudulent con-
version of the money in his hands that con Sti-
tutes his crime. This Point must likewise be
ruled against the defendant Nor is there
anything in the objection that the Indictment
does not charge that the money embeZzled was
''lawfuI money of the United States" Our
statute section all. Revised Statutes 1885, ex-
prnssly dispenses with the necessity of any such
tyerment.
There was error in overruling the demur
rer to the evidence. It sufficient if tn g
jury believed it to convict the defendant. The
testimony of the experts who examined the
treasury at the request of Gov. Francis dis
closed that the defendant defaulter to
the amount of S:s2..4 80, and this was sup
plemented by evidence of admissions of the
defendant TO the state auditor and others and
by the proof of drawing the draft for 81 $50 on
the Franklin bank and charging the same
against himself for 81 so only. and of the
drawing OF the draft for $3.50 in favor of R.
E. Wilson, and failing to charge him
self at all with these sums. The de-
PENDANT off red to prove by witness p T.
Miller, that E. T. holland, as state treasurer,
had to his account with the Bank of Commerce
in New York in the redemption bond and re-
demption coupon accounts, on the 18th of March,
the day that defendant resigned. the sum Of
S2.745G9 and that the committee did not de-
duct that from his account in their report.
tIarN oI, 1n1
assigned error The motion for trial
does not specify the exclusion of this particular
evidence. but assigns generally as error that
the court excluded from the jury proper COM
petent and relevant testimony offered by the
defendant. This was sufficient. 1t has been
the practice in this court from it's or yani cation.
Nothing more definite has ever been required.
Recurring then to the offer of defendant. OF
what avail would it have been to the
defendant to show that the S}2 IA. 90 was on de-
posit with the Bank of Commerce on the 7th of
March in the bond redemption account? He
not charged with e1nbezzling any of that
fund in the indictm mt on the states evidence
By the laws of this state the state treasurer
with the approval of the governor and attOr-
ney general, is required to select bank in New
York city the fiscal agent in this state. All
the interest on the bonded indebtedness of this
state is payable at said i'ank, except the inter-
est the state schoo' and seminary certif1-
cate cOnsols. This ba'. X is required to open
with the amount received from the state, and
charging him with the coupons and bonds paid
by it for the state. This fiscal agent is also re-
CURED to certify to the treasurer and state aud
itor and governor, each. the amount received
by it for the payments of interests on bonds of
the state. aforesaid, also the amount re-
ceived for the payment Of maturing bonds or
bonds called in for redemption, and said bank is
charged Herewith both by the auditor and
treasurer. The coupons and bonds are then
paid from tina to time by the fiscal agent. the
bank in New York. without other warrants
tn 4raof. Section 1888 provides that the state
au itor shall, at least fifteen days before tho
interest is due or the state bonds matured,
draw his warrant on the state treasury for thu
payments of said bonds or interest, or both.
E-nb zz'emant is necessarily peculiar in some
OF its features. and particularly so when pub
lie officer obtains funds by virtue of his office.
Unlike the ordinary clerk, he has one to
watch over his manner of doing business.
Manifestly if the rigid rules of the common
law requiring the state to show exactly when
he received certain moneys the character of
the money whether drafts, bank notes,
or coin. and their denominations. and
exactly how he effected the appropri stion.
were to obtain. then the statute would be
dead letter. Accordingly thu courts of this
country. with great unanimty. have not con-
sidered the common law proceed ants as con-
trolling under similar statutes, and while re-
curing substantial compliance with the statu-
tory requirements and having due regard to
the constitutional guarantees they have
strued this law literally, the judiciary rela-
ton enables the officer to convert funds and
securities to his use and at the same time
re. ders it almost impossible for the state in
advance to charge when and how it was done.
We have endnavored to examine every fact in
this record. and have accorded every point
made for reversal careful consideration, and
our construction is that there was no error
al
rights of the defendant, and the Judgment is ac-
cordingly affirmed