Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-11
that this money should be misappro-

The court here refers to certain evil
dence as enormously admitted, such as
the method of discounting notes ana
the use of accommodation paper. The
court in this connection states that
here is no claim that the transactions
n regard to discounting notes and the
Sc of accommodation paper were UNI
llwftil. and therefore, should not have
been admitted in evidence. The m
trliction of the court to the effect that
lhe Fraudulent conversion of property
" money OF another is the voluntary
ornmtssion of such an act, the newt
bile effect OF which is to deprive the
lue oaner of his property or money
and a criminal intent may De IN
ferred from the commission of such am
act was error. The opinion proceeds:
1T cannot be true that the voluntary
loing of an act. the unexpected con-
sequence of which even tho inevitable
is to deprive the owner of his prop
erty, there being no intention that the
1ct shall have such result, can con-
,titute the crime Of embezzlemen: nor
hat the mere means of knowledge on
he part of the officer of the corpora
ion that it's method of doing business,
sanctioned by him, will in a particular
case result in the failure to apply mon
" received to the proper purpose in
he absence of any intention on his
part that such result shall follow in
such case, will constitute such crime.
rEe difficulty with the whole theory
IN which the case was tried is that it
sanctions a conviction for a crime
without any evidence either of any
criminal act, or any criminal intent on
he part of defendant"
AS to the evidence received with ref
erence to other transactions it is per-
tinent also to suggest that even tho
they We're criminal they could not be
shown I'm this prosecution unless they
tended to establish criminal intent
with reference to the misappropra-
ton OF the money of Roemer 81 Mill
Ter"
Some authorities are here given.
1t is then stated that the indictment
charges that the defendant (not as Of
iicer of Il corporation. but individu-
ally) did unlaw FULLY etc. steal and
tale s3S5.50 Of the property of Roemer
y Miller. with intent on his part to
deprive them of the same, and convert
The same TO his own use. and attention
IS drawn to the fact that by describing
the intention by which the crime was
committed, the Indictment further re-
cites that the defendant was president
and treasurer of the company.
IF the first portion of the indict-
inent directly charges personal mis-
conduct of defendant as an Individual
..ith reference to money received by
aim from Roemer & Miller, it's alIega-
5onS in this respect are wholly un-
supported by the evidence. and need not
oe further considered; and it is only
those allegations by which it is sought
10 charge some liability upon defend
mt by reason of his being an officer
IN the company and having general SUI
ervsion of it's business affairs and
nose relating to it's methods Of bust
,ess, which we have occasion now to
onsider. We are not referred to any
,uthority for the proposition that the
officer of a corporation. no matter
aow great his responsibility. is Grim
ally liable for the acts of the corpora
on, performed thru other officers or
gents in misappiopriating money. 1t
8 no doubt true that the corporation
ould be liable for such misappropria-
Ion by it's officers; but there seems
o be no reason for holding that one
officer is to be held crimnally ac-
countable for the acts of another Of
Ger, nor for the acts of subordinates,
4nless such acts are by his direct au-
thority and in the execution Of GRIM
nal purpose on his part. The officer
cannot be crirninally liable for the acts
Of his subordinates in a greater meas
ire than a principal is criminally liza
Ole for the acts of his agents or serv-
ants; and it is we'll settled that
principal is not thus liable for the
acts of his agents or servant, even
though done in the general course OF
the employment, unless they are direct
ly authorized or consented to by him;
for the authority to do criminal act
will not be presumed
Some authorities are here given:
LAS it is conceded that defendant
had no knowledge whatever with ref
erence to the misappropriation of any
money of Eoelner & Miller, proof Of
other transactions of a similar char
acter could not have had any bearing on
the intent of the defendant with refer
ence to this particular transaction.
The court explained to the jury that
the evidence of other transactions and
the method of doing business did not
alone show any violation of law, and
told them that the CRIME charged
must be found, If at all, In the receiv-
ing of money by the company with
specific directions to Apply upon notes
given by patrons of the company and
mingling of such money with the
funds of said company, but in this in
instruction we think the court failed
to add to the evidence OF a course of
business which is conceded to have
been legitimate, any fact which the
Jury could find from the evidence
tended to show any crime on the part
of defendant. The defendant did not
receive the money nor Intentionally
fail to apply it upon the notes, for he
had no knowledge Of its receipt.
Perhaps the fundamental difficulty
with the theory of the trial court was
that he did not consistently bear In
mind the general rule that in criminal
cases proof of some fact or Facts tend
ing to show criminal intent IS essen
tial'
After referring to another instruction
held to be erroneous, the court states:
zone other matter relating to the
introduction of evidence should be
noticed. The state was allowed, over
defendants objection, to introduce in