St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-06

particulars specifying the amounts al
legged to have been embezzled, as fol-.
lows: April g. 1893, $4,000; April %,
1893, $4,000; June 10, 1898, $4,000. In the
trial court a verdict of guilty was re-
turned, but the amount embezzied was
placed at $4,000, instead of at $4,000.
Upon motion for a new trial the court
held that the evidence was not sufficient
to justify a conviction for embezZl1ng
any sum in excess of $1,000 but that
the evidence was sufficient to justify.
a conviction of embeZzling the $1,000:
specified in the bill of particulars as
having been taken June 10. and, there
fore denied a new trial, as the error
of the jury with regard to the amount
embezzled was an error without preJu-
dice, the difference being immaterial.
as it would not affect the grade OF the
offense The title and syllabus of the
case follow:
State of Minnesota. respondent, Us.
Kristian Kortgaard, appellant. Or
der affirmed. Mitchell j.
''In any prosecution for the crime OF
embezzling, the money, etc, OF any
person by a clerk, agent or servan {
of such person 1t shall be sufilcleht
to allege generally in the indictment
an enlightenment of a certain sum OF
money without specifying any par
ticulars of such embezZlement, and on
the trial evidence may be given or
any such embeZzlement within Sin
months next after the time stated in
the Indictment" Gen. st. 1894, sec 1262.
Held that this section is applicable
to bank officers indicted for embezzle-
ment or statutory larceny under sub
| division 2, section 4l5 OF the penal
| code.
! evidence, in support of the substantive
| offense charged, of an act of embezzle-
ment committed on the date alleged in
the indictment and also OF any otner
/ act of embezzlement committed With
| in six months thereafter.
Held, also, that the evidence in this
| case showed that the defendant had
| such possession, custody and control
! of the funds of the bank that the APP
preparation of them by him to his Owl,
use with intent to deprive the bank or
its property would constitute embeZZle-
ment or statutory larceny. II the posi-.
ton or employment of an officer OF
bank gives him a superior or JOINT
and concurrent possession, CUSTODY or
control of the bank funds with SUBJ
ordinate officers or agents OF the bank,
it constitutes such possession, custody
or control as will render the appro-
priation of the funds to his own use,
with the intent aforesaid, embezZle-
ment or statutory larceny.
own use the funds of the bank in
trusted to his custody, with intent to
deprive the bank of its property, 1t
is none the less embezzlement because
done under the guiSe or form of d loan
to himself or an overdraft of his ac-
count.
Where an act is in itself unlawful the
law will presume a criminal intent
from the intentional commission of the
act.
Certain parts of the charge consid-
cred and held not to contain prejudiciai
KoRTGAARD IN PRISON.
When the news of the decision
reached Minneapolis, a reporter called
at the Kortgaard residence, but was
informed that Mr.. Kortgaard was not
at home Later it was learned that the
ex-city treasurer was down town con-
ferring with his attorneys. A dispatch
was received from Sheriff Holmberg
| from Saltwater at o'clock yesterday
| afternoon stating that Kortgaard had
just passed through; the prison barber
| hands, and had already begun his term
| of imprisonment.
| The prisoners Incarceration under
! the reformatory plan has created a
| great deal of speculation as to how
many years. he will be kept in Still
| water. The law governing the case
was passed in 1893, and man serving
under it is supposed to serve shorter
| period of time than criminals to whom
| the refermatory sentence does not ap-
| ply. If this is the proper interpreta-
ton of the law, Kortgaard will have
| to stay in the penitentiary at least five
| years.
Kortgaard's attorney. Capt. Hart,
| said yesterday that, so far as he could
| see, there was nothing for him to do
but file a petition for a. rehearing, which
he would probably do soon. He added
that, in his opinion, Kortgaard had not
| been actuated by criminal intentions.
It is now two years since Kristian
| Kortgaard was found guilty OF embez-
! Element. In addition to the Indictment
| on which he was found guilty, there
| are eight others pending against him
which were not acted upon during the