Lorden

People v. Lorden

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 432·62 Cal. App. 501·217 P. 117
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1923Crim. No. 1112.California1,403 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction and an order of the trial court denying him a new trial.

He was charged in an information filed by the district attorney with having committed the crime of embezzlement, on the sixth day of March, 1922. Before we take up that particular transaction it should be recited that the complain ing witness, Bella Gilmore, in the month of February of that year called at the office of Harrison J. De Vere, manager of the office at San Jose of Aftergood & Company, for the purpose of purchasing corporate securities. On that occasion she purchased through Mr. De Vere ten shares of Studebaker at $95 a share; ten shares of American Tobacco at $131; ten shares of Telephone at $118, and ten shares of Allis Chalmers, at $45, and ten shares of Texas Oil at something like $30. As stated, she bought the stocks on margin and at the time of the purchase she was told by Mr. De Vere that it was necessary for her to furnish collateral. As she did not understand the meaning of the expression collateral, she inquired of Mr. De Vere and he informed her that she could put up other stock which Aftergood & Company would deposit in the bank, borrow money on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.