on demand,84 of itself sufficient to constitute a conversion or sustain a conviction. But a failure to account is evidence of embezzlement, and may be considered along with the other evidence in the case.35 And a demand and refusal are evidence of conversion even though they are not essential to constitute the crime,36 and they may raise a prima facie presumption of guilt.87 Nebraska, Nelson v. State, 86 Neb. 856, 126 N. W. 518. New Jersey. Fitzgerald v. State, 50 N. J. L. 475, 14 Atl. 746. Oklahoma. Blake v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 549, 160 Pac. 30, L. R. A. 1917 B 1261. A bailee of money or property cannot be convicted of embezzlement for failure to return it where it has been stolen from him. State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425. 84 State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; State v. Reynolds, 65 N. J. L. 424, 47 Atl. 644; State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. 35 People v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173, 37 Pac. 630, 39 Pac. 524; Ambrose v. United States, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 112; Hanna v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 241 Mo. 383, 145 S. W. 412. Failure of a guardian or executor to pay on settlement of his account is evidence of conversion. Com. v. Levi, 44 Pa. Super. Ct. 253; Com. v. Kaufman, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 310. It is evidence merely, and will not prevent proof of an embezzlement by him before the arrival of the time for an accounting. People v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173, 37 Pac. 630, 39 Pac. 524. 36 Arizona. Territory v. Monroe, 10 Ariz. 53, 85 Pac. 651. California. People v. Ward, 134 Cal. 301, 66 Pac. 372. Indiana. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306. Iowa. State v. Hengen, 106 Iowa 711, 77 N. W. 453. Kentucky. Com. v. Kelley, 125 Ky. 245, 101 S. W. 315, 15 Ann. Cas. 573; Com. v. Fisher, 113 Ky. 491, 68 S. W. 855. Missouri. State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 141, 83 S. W. 1083. New Jersey. State v. Egan, 84 N. J. L. 701, 87 Atl. 455, aff'g 82 N. J. L. 317, 83 Atl. 235; State v. Reynolds, 65 N. J. L. 424, 47 Atl. 644; Fitzgerald v. State, 50 N. J. L. 475, 14 Atl. 746. North Dakota. State v. Collins, 4 N. D. 433, 61 N. W. 467. Ohio. State v. Bailey, 50 Ohio St. 636, 36 N. E. 233; Campbell v. State, 35 Ohio St. 70; Shelley v. State, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. (N. S.) 164, aff'd 85 Ohio St. 481, 98 N. E. 1134. South Dakota. State v. Millard, 30 S. D. 169, 138 N. W. 366. West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. But, to be so, the demand must be made by a person authorized to receive the money. People v. Tomlinson, 66 Cal. 344, 5 Pac. 509. As to the necessity for a demand, see § 542, infra. 37 State v. Cowdery, 79 Minn. 94, 81 N. W. 750, 48 L. R. A. 92; State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. A statutory provision to this effect does not make a demand essential to a conviction, or dispense with the necessity for one when, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it should be given. State v. Moyer, 58 The failure of a public officer or other person having charge of public money or property to account for or turn it over to his successor or other person entitled to it, when it is his duty to do so, is often held to be prima facie evidence of conversion, where no good and satisfactory excuse for such failure is shown, and in some states this is the rule by statute.88 Under some statutes such a failure or refusal by a public officer 39 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. The presumption is not conclusive, and may be rebutted by any competent evidence, State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344; or overcome by opposite inferences from admitted facts. State v. Cowdery, 79 Minn. 94, 81 N. W. 750, 48 L. R. A. 92. 38 Florida. White v. State, 78 Fla. 52, 82 So. 602; Black v. State, 77 Fla. 289, 81 So. 411; Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785. Louisiana. State v. Dudenhefer, 122 La. 288, 47 So. 614. Michigan. People v. Warren, 122 Mich. 504, 81 N. W. 360, 80 Am. St. Rep. 582; People v. Seeley, 117 Mich. 263, 75 N. W. 609. Minnesota. State V. Mims, 26 Minn. 183, 2 N. W. 494, 683; State v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67. Mississippi. Hemingway v. State, 68 Miss. 371, 8 So. 317. Missouri. See State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425. Nebraska. Bolln v. State, 51 Neb. 581, 71 N. W. 444, aff'd 176 U. S. 83, 44 L. Ed. 382, 20 Sup. Ct. 287. Ohio. State v. Cameron, 91 Ohio St. 50, 109 N. E. 584; State v. Meyers, 56 Ohio St. 340, 47 N. E. 138. Texas. Busby v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 289, 103 S. W. 638. It is not conclusive, however, and may be rebutted. People v. Warren, 122 Mich. 504, 81 N. W. 360, 80 Am. St. Rep. 582. As by showing that the money supposed to be in defendant's hands never came to him. People v. Seeley, 117 Mich. 263, 75 N. W. 609. A tax collector is not criminally liable for embezzlement merely because funds shown by the records of his office to have been received have not been accounted for, where other persons than the accused received the funds and made the entries. Rast v. State, 79 Fla. 772, 84 So. 683. 39 See the statutes of the various states, and the following cases: Alabama. Britton v. State, 77 Ala. 202. Arkansas. Davis v. State, 80 Ark. 310, 97 S. W. 54. Indiana. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; State v. Wells, 112 Ind. 237, 13 N. E. 722; Hollingsworth v. State, 111 Ind. 289, 12 N. E. 490. Iowa. State v. McKinney, 130 Iowa 370, 106 N. W. 931. Maryland. State v. Nicholson, 67 Md. 1, 8 Atl. 817. Minnesota. State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 78, 11 N. W. 233; State v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67. or by an agent or by one acting in a fiduciary capacity 40 constitutes embezzlement. § 542. Necessity for demand. As a rule to make a conversion embezzlement, no demand is necessary, especially where the time of the registry of the court, or paid into court or received by the officers thereof with the treasurer, assistant treasurer, or a designated depositary of the United States, shall be guilty of embezzlement. United States V. Dodge, 251 Fed. 740; United States v. Dodge, 251 Fed. 737. And see United States v. Davis, 243 U. S. 570, 61 L. Ed. 906, 37 Sup. Ct. 442. And it also provides (§ 91) that any other person having money of the United States in his possession or under his control who shall fail to so deposit it when required to do so by the secretary of the treasury, or the head of any other proper department, or by the accounting officers of the treasury, shall be guilty of embezzlement. Under the latter provision, the of fense consists in the failure to comply with the direction to deposit, and may be complete without any actual embezzlement. Dimmick United States, 121 Fed. 638, aff'g 112 Fed. 350, certiorari denied 191 U. S. 574, 48 L. Ed. 308, 24 Sup. Ct. 846. V. 40 State v. Matthews, 129 Ind. 281, 28 N. E. 703; State v. Adamson, 114 Ind. 216, 16 N. E. 181; State v. Gillis, 75 Miss. 331, 24 So. 25; State v. Hopkins, 56 Vt. 250. A statute making it larceny for an executor or administrator to fail or refuse, without good cause, to account for or pay over money or property of the estate, does not apply to an administrator who is unable to pay over money because he wrongfully loaned it prior to the passage of the act. Brown v. People, 218 Ill. 361, 75 N. E. 984. Nor does such a provision in rela 41 tion to executors apply to the refusal of an executor to pay a judgment against him as such on a claim against the estate. State v. Pannell (Miss.), 34 So. 388. 41 Arkansas. Wallace v. State, 54 Ark. 542, 16 S. W. 571. California. People v. Hatch, 163 Cal. 368, 125 Pac. 907; People v. Ward, 134 Cal. 301, 66 Pac. 372; People v. Gordon, 133 Cal. 328, 65 Pac. 746, Am. St. Rep. 174; People v. Blair, 19 Cal. App. 688, 127 Pac. 657. Georgia. Keys v. State, 112 Ga. 392, 37 S. E. 762, 81 Am. St. Rep. 63; Alderman v. State, 57 Ga. 367; Lewis v. State, 17 Ga. App. 667, 87 S. E. 1087; Birt v. State, 1 Ga. App. 150, 57 S. E. 965. Indiana. Agar v. State, 176 Ind. 234, 94 N. E. 819; Dean v. State, 147 Ind. 215, 46 N. E. 528; Hollingsworth v. State, 111 Ind. 289, 12 N. E. 490; State v. Mason, 108 Ind. 48, 8 N. E. 716. Iowa. State v. Hengen, 106 Iowa 711, 77 N. W. 453. Kentucky. Com. v. Kelley, 125 Ky. 245, 101 S. W. 315, 15 Ann. Cas. 573. Louisiana. State v. Pellerin, 118 La. 547, 43 So. 159. Massachusetts. Com. v. Hussey, 111 Mass. 432; Com. v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray (Mass.) 173. Minnesota. State v. Comings, 54 Minn. 359, 56 N. W. 50. Missouri. State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425. Nebraska. Bartley v. State, 53 Neb. 310, 73 N. W. 744. New Jersey. State v. Egan, 84 N. delivery or payment and the person to whom the same is to be made are fixed by statute or by contract, 42 or where the defendant conceals the fact that he has possession of money and falsely represents that he has fully accounted for what he has received,48 or where it appears that he has disappeared or fled from the state, or that for any reason a demand would be unavailing and a meaningless ceremony.4 But of course the legislature may make the commission of the offense. to depend upon the condition precedent of a failure to comply with J. L. 701, 87 Atl. 455, aff'g 82 N. J. L. 317, 83 Atl. 235; State v. Reynolds, 65 N. J. L. 424, 47 Atl. 644. New York. People v. Damron, 160 N. Y. App. Div. 424, 145 N. Y. Supp. 239, aff'd 212 N. Y. 256, 106 N. E. 67. Ohio. State v. Bailey, 50 Ohio St. 636, 36 N. E. 233; Shelley v. State, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. (N. S.) 164, aff'd 85 Ohio St. 481, 98 N. E. 1134. Oregon. State v. Ross, 55 Ore. 450, 104 Pac. 596, 106 Pac. 1022, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 613. South Dakota. State v. Millard, 30 S. D. 169, 138 N. W. 366. Washington. State v. Leonard, 56 Wash. 83, 105 Pac. 163, 21 Ann. Cas. 69. Wisconsin. Prinslow v. State, 140 Wis. 131, 121 N. W. 637. A demand and refusal are evidence of conversion, even when not necessary. See § 541, supra. 42 State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306. The jury may find a fraudulent conversion without a demand where a public officer, required by law to pay over funds at a particular time, fails to do so, and it appears that he has applied the same to his own use, or where an agent or employee is required by his contract to account at a definite time for moneys received by him, and it appears that he has not done so, but has converted the same to his own use. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Under the Indiana statute no demand is necessary to sustain a prosecution against a public officer who fails to pay over to his successor money remaining in his hands at the expiration of his term of office. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306. 43 People v. Fitzgerald, 130 N. Y. App. Div. 124, 114 N. Y. Supp. 476, aff'd 195 N. Y. 153, 88 N. E. 27; People v. Birnbaum, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 480, 100 N. Y. Supp. 160. 44 California. People v. Fisher, 16 Cal. App. 271, 116 Pac. 688. Illinois. Kossakowski v. People, 177 Ill. 563, 53 N. E. 115. Indiana. Agar v. State, 176 Ind. 234, 94 N. E. 819. Michigan. People v. Carter, 122 Mich. 669, 81 N. W. 924. Missouri. State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 141, 83 S. W. 1083. West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. 45 State v. Murphy, 113 Minn. 405, 129 N. W. 850. As where the owner of the money did not know that it had been converted by being paid over to a corporation controlled by the defendant until after the bankruptcy of the corporation. Milbrath v. State, 138 Wis. 354, 120 N. W. 252, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1012. Cas. 344. a demand. And a demand is necessary to sustain a conviction under a statute making it embezzlement to neglect or refuse to deliver or pay over property or money on demand.46 A demand is also essential when it is necessary to terminate a lawful possession and establish a conversion.47 And a demand must be proved where a conversion is not otherwise shown. 48 § 543. Necessity for personal gain. It is immaterial whether the person converting the money or property did so for his own per 46 Illinois. Wright v. People, 61 Ill. 382. Indiana. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; State v. Sarlls, 135 Ind. 195, 34 N. E. 1129; State v. Adamson, 114 Ind. 216, 16 N. E. 181. Iowa. State v. McKinney, 130 Iowa 370, 106 N. W. 931. Kansas. State v. Eastman, 62 Kan. 353, 63 Pac. 597; State v. Bancroft, 22 Kan. 170. Minnesota. State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 78, 11 N. W. 233; State v. Murch, 22 Minn. 67. New Mexico. Territory v. Abeyta, 14 N. M. 56, 89 Pac. 254. Dix v. State, 89 Wis. Wisconsin. 250, 61 N. W. 760. A demand and refusal must be proved where the statute provides that no one shall be adjudged guilty of the offense until a demand has been made and the accused has failed to return the money or property on such demand being made, but such a demand and failure need not be alleged in the indictment. Territory v. Monroe, 10 Ariz. 53, 85 Pac. 651. In Georgia it is larceny after trust if the person intrusted disposes of the money or article intrusted without the consent of the owner or bailor and fails to pay him on demand the market price or value thereof. Raiden v. State, 1 Ga. App. 532, 57 S. E. 989. 47 People v. Wyman, 102 Cal. 552, 36 Pac. 932; Fitzgerald v. State, 50 N. J. L. 475, 14 Atl. 746; Prinslow v. State, 140 Wis. 131, 121 N. W. 637. Where the time for the return of funds is indefinite or not fixed, a demand or other evidence of a fraudulent intent to convert may be necessary. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; State v. Reynolds, 65 N. J. L. 424, 47 Atl. 644. An attorney who is entitled to 'a fee for collecting money for his client is not liable to indictment for embezzlement, for failure to pay over the amount collected, until after a demand is made upon him for the amount and tender made of his reasonable fees and expenses. People v. Ehle, 273 Ill. 424, 112 N. E. 970. 48 California. People v. Hatch, 163 Cal. 368, 125 Pac. 907; People v. Wyman, 102 Cal. 552, 36 Pac. 932; People v. Blair, 19 Cal. App. 688, 127 Pac. 657. Missouri. State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425. Ohio. Shelley v. State, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. (N. S.) 164, aff'd 85 Ohio St. 481, 98 N. E. 1134. Oklahoma. Blake V. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 549, 160 Pac. 30, L. R. A. 1917 B 1261. Oregon. State v. Ross, 55 Ore. 450, 104 Pac. 596, 106 Pac. 1022, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 613. |