¶1concurring. I concur in result only because I think we are controlled by State v. Croland, 54 N. J. Super. 594 (App. Div. 1959), aff’d. 31 N. J. 380 (1960), the rationale of which I believe to be erroneous. See State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 164 A. 2d 399 (Sup. Ct. 1960); People v. Schmidt, 147 Cal. App. 2d 222, 305 P. 2d 215 (D. Ct. App. 1956); State v. Stiles, 5 Utah 2d 101, 297 P. 2d 227 (Sup. Ct. 1956); 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Embezzlement § 11 at 561.
160 N.J. Super. 310
State v. Pritchard
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided June 30, 1978
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1978-06-30
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1979
1 state decisions
Relies on State v. Harris · People v. Schmidt · State v. Croland
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1978-06-30
View the full empirical analysis of this case →