The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-06-05
Supreme Court Holds That He Was
Wr0ngfully Convicted On
EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGE
MRS. PETERSEN'S PROCEEDINGS
TO RECOVER ALIMONY.
Mrs. Halliday Would Not Come tc
America-Divorce Granted In
Bertsch VS.. Bertsch-County War
rant Case Still Goes On-Probate
Matters-Federal Court.

The supreme court handed down an
opinion yesterday in the case of the
state of Utah VS.. Thomas ]. Blue, ap-
pellant, reversing the judgment of the
district court by which the defendant
Blue was convicted of embezzlement
and sentenced to Is months imprison-
ment. The opinion was written by
Justice Bartch, fully concurred in by
Justice Miner and concurred in by
Chief Justice Zane as to the result.
The complaint charged that while the
defendant was treasurer of Eureka City
and having in his custody S674.6S of the
city'S money, he appropriated the same
to his own use and to the use of par
ties unknown: that he failed and neg
lected to keep the same in his posses
sion until delivered and paid by author
ity of law and deposited the same with
the banking house of George Arthur
Rice & Co., of which institution he was
the treasurer, and which failed and as
signed and Blue was a party to- the
assignment.
The opinion says that the complaint
although containing three counts,
charges but one offense, which is con-
tanned in the first and third counts. and
in effect is that the defendant embeZ-
Zled the money by depositing it with
the banking house named. The second
count is simply the corrollary to the
charge in the first and third counts.
The appellant urged as error the re-
fusal of the trial judge to instruct the
jury that in order to convict they must
find that the defendant transferred the
money to the assignee Of the bank with
intent to defraud the city.
In refusing this request the court
finds Judge McCarty, before whom the
case was tried, took an incorrect view
of the law under our statutes. THE
legislature" the court says, never in
tended to punish a man for an act
committed without a guilty intent"
The law provides: (Section 1883 of the
revised statutes, penal Code.): In
every crime or public offense there
must exist a union or joint operation
Of act and intent, or criminal negli-
gence."
Counsel for defendant also contended
that the court erred in excluding evil
dence offered to prove his general repu-
tation for honesty and integrity. The
court finds Blues contention on this
point to be sound, and holds that what
ever be the degree of the offense with
which the accused is charged, evidence
of his good character may be intro
duced without reference to the appar
emily conclusive or unconclusive char
acter of the other evidence.
Chief Justice Zane, in his qualified
concurrence, says.
Il am of the opinion the evidence of
intent was sufficient to convict, if
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
defendant was treaurer of Eureka City;
that he had in his possession $674.6S of
its money knowing it to be such, and
that he intentionally converted it to his
own use by paying it to his individual
creditors, or otherwise. He could not
be heard to say that he thought he had
a right to deposit it in the bank to his
private account, and appropriate it to
his own use by devoting it to the pay
ment of his individual creditors. Such
facts having been proven beyond a rea-
soma BILE doubt, the intent to violate the
law is conclusively presumed. The de-
PENDANT could not be heard to say he
did not intend to violate the law. A
distinction may be made in such d case
between an intent to do the unlawful
act and an intent to violate the law.
The defendant was required to know
the law.
Il concur in the opinion as to other
points decided by the court"