Sapp v. State, (1946)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 12
Judges: THOMAS, J.:
Attorneys: Coe Eggart, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Attorney General, and Reeves Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Filed: Jun. 14, 1946
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Whether "a non trespassory breach of duty to return another's property mistakenly received [can] constitute a larceny" is thought by counsel for appellant to be the substantial question presented in this appeal. The answer must depend on the precise attitude and intention of appellant at the time he received from a bank more than four thousand dollars — on a check he presented — instead of the amount of thirty-six dollars for which the check was drawn. In order to comprehend clearly just what oc
Summary: Whether "a non trespassory breach of duty to return another's property mistakenly received [can] constitute a larceny" is thought by counsel for appellant to be the substantial question presented in this appeal. The answer must depend on the precise attitude and intention of appellant at the time he received from a bank more than four thousand dollars — on a check he presented — instead of the amount of thirty-six dollars for which the check was drawn. In order to comprehend clearly just what occ..
More
I am not sure from the evidence in this case that at the time the appellant accepted and took from the bank teller the money handed him he knew that a mistake had been made and that he was getting over $4000 more than he was entitled to, but on the evidence as a whole this was, as I see it, a jury question which the jury settled adversely to appellant, and therefore the trial judge should not be held in error in declining to set the verdict aside.
Source: CourtListener
