Case Name: PESKIND and KARP v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-03-20
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 452
Docket Number: No. 6267
Parties: PESKIND and KARP v. STATE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 452–452

Head Matter:
PESKIND and KARP v. STATE
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 6267.
Decided March 20, 1926
Attorneys — Boyd, Cannon, Brooks and Wick-ham; Moore, Mahon, Miller and Moore; James-L. Lind for Peskind and Karp; all of Cleveland. C. C. Crabbe, Joseph Eagleson, Columbus, Chas. Higley and David E. Green, Cleveland, for State. John A. Cline, Cleveland, for Karp.

Opinion:
ALLREAD, J.
Solomon Peskind and Benjamin Karp were tried in Cuyahoga Common Pleas under section 12472 GC., charged with Converting assets of the Municipal Sav. & Loan Assn., with intent to defraud said company. The court stated in his charge that the jury may consider that the acts themselves carry with them the intent to defraud and that intent need not be proven. Peskind and Karp excepted-to this charge and prosecuted error. The court of appeals held:
1. While section 12472 GC. does not specifically provide that intent to defraud is one of the elements of the crime, Ohio Supreme Court in 91 OS. 132 held that such intent is a necessary element.
2. The charge of the court eliminating the intent from consideration of the jury is therefor erroneous.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.