Commonwealth v. Rockafellow
Commonwealth v. Rockafellow
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The only exceptions that require notice relate to the sufficiency of the indictment, which was drawn under the' act of May 9, 1889, P. L. 145. The act provides that any banker who-sball receive money from a depositor with the knowledge that he, the banker, is at the time insolvent, shall be guilty of embezzlement.
The averment in the indictment follows the language of the act, and is in substantial compliance with the rules of criminal pleading.
The offence clearly and distinctly defined is the fraudulent receipt of the money of a depositor. The act is not to be nullified because this is called embezzlement and by a construction which reads into its provisions the definition of that offence. The word was not well chosen, but the intention is clear. The case was carefully tried and properly submitted.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth v. F. V. Rockafellow
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Criminal law—Banker— Insolvency—Deposit—Embezzlement—Indict ment—Act of May 9, 1889. Under the act of May 9,1889, P. L. 145, which provides that any banker who shall1 receive money from a depositor with the knowledge that he, the banker, is at the time insolvent, shall be guilty of embezzlement, an indictment is sufficient which charges that defendant, being a banker and knowing that he was insolvent, received money from a depositor. The offence defined by the act is the fraudulent receipt of the money of a depositor, and it is immaterial that the act describes it as “ embezzlement.” The act cannot be nullified by a construction which reads into its provisions the definition of “ embezzlement.”