Case Name: HERRICK v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-05
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 798
Docket Number: No. 1399
Parties: HERRICK v. STATE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
No. 821
HERRICK v. STATE
Ohio Appeals, 8th District, Cuyahoga County
No. 1399.
Decided Nov. 5, 1923
103. EMBEZZLEMENT.
A shipping clerk who wrongfully takes goods irl his custody, not guilty of embezzlement but Iarcenjl —Indictment for both embezzlement and larcenj] should show goods taken to be same in each coufi
Attorneys — R. R. Cheeks, for Herrick; M. C. Stan; ton, Pros., for State.

Opinion:
VICKERY, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Epitomized Opinion
Herrick was a shipping clerk and received good; and sent them out for his employer. He was in dieted for embezzling some of the goods, of the valu of several hundred dollars. There was also a coun charging him with larceny. He was convicted o. embezzlement in Cuyahoga Common Pleas. In re| versing the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:
1. As the record did not show that the propert; alleged in the first count to have been -embezzled was the same as that he was charged with stealing! a case of larceny could not be made out.
2. That the record shows that Herrick was in n sense in possession of the goods, but was merelj custodian of them, and that under the authority o 90 OS. 352, a very similar case, he could be con| victed of larceny only and that the conviction unde the first count was wrong, and must be reversed