¶1The instructions of the court that “ upon the undisputed evidence in the case Brown did not sustain such a relation to the property in question as would make his felonious appropriation of it an act of embezzlement, but that his taking of the same, if the jury found the other elements necessary to constitute the offence, would be larceny,” were correct. Brown was a mere servant of the owners of the property alleged to be stolen by him. We cannot see in the case any testimony which tends to show that he had even the bare custody of the goods, much less the legal possession. They were in the possession and custody of the owners, and the felonious taking and appropriation of them by Brown was clearly larceny and not embezzlement. Upon the facts in this ease an indictment against him for embezzlement could not be sustained. Commonwealth v. Berry, 99 Mass. 428. Exceptions overruled.
104 Mass. 548
Commonwealth v. Davis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 1870
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1870-03-15
Indictment for receiving stolen goods, the property of Joseph W. C. Seavey, Charles Foster and John A. Bowman. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that the defendant received the goods from Jeremiah Brown, a clerk in the employ of the firm of Seavey, Foster & Bowman.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1892
2 state decisions
Relies on Commonwealth v. Berry
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1870-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →