Court Opinion

ID: 6719995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 22:52:46.99271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:33.519237
License: Public Domain

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