Court Opinion

ID: 4904978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-03 05:55:13.320057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:04.844240
License: Public Domain

Winkler, J.
The verdict is defective in that the punishment is assessed “ at two years in the state penty.” The judgment is defective in that it does not adjudge the accused guilty, and name the offense of which he is adjudged guilty. The proof is defective in that it tends rather to show that the money charged to have been misapplied was an advance payment made to the accused, rather than money of another, or others, intrusted to him.
It is questionable whether the indictment is sufficient to admit such proof of the identity of the money as would warrant a conviction. For these errors, apparent on the face of the transcript, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.