Denton v. State

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was indicted for embezzlement, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, and his case was removed to the Criminal Court of Baltimore, where he was tried and convicted. There were two exceptions taken at the trial to the admission of evidence offered on the part of the State, and the correctness of the Court’s ruling on the evidence is the only question before us. The indictment is founded on section 75, of Article 27, of the Code of Public General Laws, which provides that “ whosoever being a cashier, servant, agent, or clerk to any person, or to any body corporate, or being employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a cashier, servant, agent, or clerk, by any person or body corporate, shall fraudulently embezzle any money * * * * which or any part whereof shall be delivered to or received or taken into possession by him, for or in the name of or on the account of his master or employer, shall be deemed to have feloniously stolen the same from his master or employer, although such money * * * * was not ⁵²⁹ received into the possession of such master or employer ■otherwise than by the actual possession of his cashier.” The indictment here charges in substance, that the appellant as clerk of the County Commissioners of Howard County, did receive and take into his possession for and ■on account of his said employer, the said County Commissioners, certain money, to wit, one hundred and eighty-three dollars and eighty cents, and did embezzle the same.

In the case of State vs. Denton, 74 Md., 517 , (a former appeal to this Court,) it was held, that the County Commissioners being a corporation, as declared by section 1, -of Article 25 of the Code, embezzlement by their clerk is within the scope of section 75, of Article 27 of the Code; that every act that the clerk does is done, not in virtue of an independent official position held by him, hut as the clerk, the agent, or the servant of a superior. He acts for them, and as they direct, and not otherwise. He is just what section 1, Article 25, calls him,— a clerk to a body corporate, appointed by that body, subject to its authority and consequently its employe. The State then proved that the appellant was the clerk of the County Commissioners, and offered to prove the receipt of the money by Denton, by the following receipted tax bill: “ Howard County Levy.

County taxes for 1889. National Farmers and Planters Bank of Balto., To the Commissioners of Howard County, Dr. To amount of assessment $32,589.60 county tax at 60 cents on the $100. $195 53 Less 6 per cent, for prompt payment. 11 73 “ Received payment, $183 80 Wm. Davis, Collector. per John A. Denton, Cl’k Co. Combs.” ⁵³⁰ This receipt was admitted as evidence by the Court below, and one of the questions before us is as to the correctness of the Court’s ruling in this respect. The appellant contends that the receipt was inadmissible as evidence, because it had no tendency to show that the money which had been received by him had been collected as clerk to the County Commissioners, or in his capacity as clerk, but showed that it was collected by him as agent for Davis, collector.

But to this contention we cannot assent. The money which Denton received was the money of the