People v. Hughes

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Roland

    134 Cal.App. 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)   Cited 13 times

    Manifestly, the question of whether the facts adduced in evidence were such that it might be concluded that "openly and avowedly, and under a claim of title preferred in good faith", defendant appropriated the real property of the Spencers was one for the jury; and its determination with reference thereto, based upon substantial evidence, is conclusive upon this court. ( People v. Rose, 71 Cal.App. 550, 556 [ 236 P. 158]; People v. Ephraim, 77 Cal.App. 29 [245 P. 769]; People v. Hughes, 79 Cal.App. 697 [ 250 P. 869]; People v. Ailanjian, 114 Cal.App. 260, 266 [ 299 P. 813]. See, also, People v. Stafford, 81 Cal.App. 159 [ 253 P. 183]; People v. Tambara, 192 Cal. 236 [ 219 P. 745].

  2. People v. Coyle

    81 Cal.App. 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)   Cited 3 times

    In no instance did the defendant hold the stock "in trust" for his principal. Defendant cites People v. Borchers, 199 Cal. 52 [ 247 P. 1084], and People v. Hughes, 79 Cal.App. 697 [ 250 P. 869], in support of his contention that the defendant cannot be found guilty of embezzlement, because he alleges there can be no conversion of the Lincoln Mortgage Company stock when the defendant merely followed the instructions of his principal in using the stock as collateral to a loan. The answer to this contention is to be found in one of the cases cited by defendant.

  3. Commonwealth v. Carson

    349 Mass. 430 (Mass. 1965)   Cited 23 times

    See People v. Epstein, 245 N.Y. 234, 243; Giannetto v. General Exch. Ins. Corp. 10 App. Div.2d (N.Y.) 442, 446-447. See also People v. Hughes, 79 Cal.App. 697. The jury should have been instructed that, as to any given share of stock, they could find the defendant guilty of stealing either the share or the proceeds from its sale.

  4. Territory of Hawaii v. Yoon

    36 Haw. 550 (Haw. 1943)   Cited 1 times

    This question is one of fact. ( People v. Hughes, 79 Cal.App. 697, 250 P. 869; People v. Coyle, 81 Cal.App. 671, 254 P. 597.) As stated in State v. Baumhager, 28 Minn. 226, 231, 9 N.W. 705, 706: "The distinction must be kept in view between the offense and the evidence of it.