Title: State v. Silver
Citation: 182 N.E.2d 587, 243 Ind. 67
Docket Number: 30,187
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 1962

243 Ind. 67 (1962)
182 N.E.2d 587
STATE OF INDIANA
v.
SILVER.
No. 30,187.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed May 28, 1962.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General, Carl E. Van Dorn, Deputy Attorney General, and O.H. Roberts, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, First Judicial Circuit, of Evansville, for appellant.
Milford M. Miller, and W.C. Welborn, both of Evansville, for appellee.
ARTERBURN, C.J.
The appellee herein was charged by a second amended affidavit in four counts with embezzlement. The four counts were worded the same, with the exception that the amount involved and the date of the alleged crime varied as to each count. For the purposes of this opinion we need set out the wording of only Count One, which (omitting the caption and signature) is as follows:
The trial court sustained a motion to quash all four counts. There are certain technical questions raised with reference to the procedure in this appeal, to which we need not give consideration for the reason that the same may be easily remedied and would only delay a consideration of this case upon its merits.
*69 Upon the sustaining of the motion to quash the State refused to plead further and an appeal on the sustaining of the motion to quash is presented to this court. The gist of the motion is that the words "money aforesaid" used in the latter part of the count are too indefinite and uncertain as to whether they refer to "current money" or "funds" obtained by drawing checks on the bank account of the finance corporation. The appellee contends that he is entitled to know exactly the nature of the money or funds that he is charged with appropriating, and that the words "money" and "funds" are interchangeable and are thus indefinite.
With this latter contention we cannot agree. It seems to us the affidavit is clear that the appellee is charged with taking "current money." Current money has a definite meaning and its use in an indictment of this nature has been approved. Crawford v. State (1900), 155 Ind. 692, 57 N.E. 931; 18 Am. Jur., Embezzlement, § 6, p. 574.
From whom the finance company obtained the money and how it came under its control and ownership, is not a necessary allegation in an indictment. If the money was drawn from a bank account or from the sale of products or the collection of fees, so long as it was money owned by the finance company which the alleged embezzler held by virtue of his fiduciary relationship with the finance company, it is immaterial who previously owned or possessed the money.
In Yoder v. State (1935), 208 Ind. 50, 194 N.E. 645, this court said (at p. 63):
We find the charges as worded to be sufficient. The case is remanded for further proceedings by the trial court, with directions to vacate its ruling sustaining the motion to quash, and thereupon overrule the appellee's motion to quash.
Bobbitt, Landis and Achor, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents without opinion.
NOTE.  Reported in 182 N.E.2d 587.