STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Respondent, v. DAVID H. UGLAND, Appellant.
(187 N. W. 287)
Criminal Law — verdict based on substantial evidence is binding on Supreme Court.
1. The verdict of the jury, based upon substantial competent evidence, is binding on the court. Following State v. Cray 31 N. D. 67, 153 N. W. 425.
Embezzlement — conditions as to “possession” of property defined.
2. To constitute the crime of embezzlement, the possession of the property appropriated must have been, by the owner or for or in his behalf, intrusted to the accused so that a relation of trust and confidence relative to the thing appropriated is created, and it must appear that the accused had access to or possession of the property embezzled by virtue of such relation of trust and confidence,
Embezzlement-Larceny — taking of grain by party hired at monthly salary to assist in handling held larceny.
8. The owmer of grain hired accused on a monthly salary to assist in harvesting, threshing, caring for and transporting said grain to market. Held, that the possession of said grain, under such circumstances, remains in the owner thereof; and if accused having access to and custody of the grain, for such purposes, stealthily takes and carries away the same, or a portion thereof, without the consent of the owner, and stealthily converts the same to his own use he takes it from the possession of the owner, and is properly informed against for the larceny thereof.
Opinion filed Mar. 6. 1922.
Appeal from the District court of Ramsey county, N. D., Buttz, J.
David H. Ugland was convicted of the crime of grand larceny and appeals.
Affirmed.
Palda & Aaker, for appellant.
Embezzlement under § 9929 C. L. 1913 is “The fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted.”
To constitute larceny there must be a trespass in the original taking.
