Tomlinson

People v. Tomlinson

Good Law
102 Cal. 19·1894 Cal. LEXIS 595·36 P. 506
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 27, 1894No. 21039California1,998 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve a term of four years in the state prison at San Quentin.

His counsel claim on this appeal that if any offense is shown by the evidence it is embezzlement and not larceny. The information is in the language of the statute defining larceny, charging that he did “ feloniously steal, take, and carry away $150 of the lawful money of the United States.”

The testimony of the prosecuting witnesses, Claxton and wife, shows that on December 21, 1892, they found *21 an advertisement in a San Francisco newspaper which read as follows: “ Steady men wanted to collect and wait on customers in pleasant cash business. Short hours and light work. No experience necessary. Must have $150 cash, and be satisfied witli $70 per month. Apply No. 7 Grant avenue, .room 2.” Following the direction of the advertisement Claxton went to No. 7 Grant avenue, and there met a man who took him to the defendant’s office, No. 777 Market street. The defendant stated to him that he wanted a man to look after the office and wait on customers, and that he would have steady work. The advertisement was referred to in the conversation. The…

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.