Leggett v. Cooper

THE COURT.

The plaintiff and respondent conducted one or more stores in the city of Tulare, county of Tulare, state of California. The defendant and appellant, Anne E. Cooper, was employed by respondent as a clerk from about July, 1922, to about January, 1924, when she left his employ and went to the city of Stockton, California. The defendant A. S. Cooper is her husband.

i In September, 1924, appellant returned to one of the stores of respondent in Tulare and was there seen stealing and carrying away merchandise. A few days later two employees of respondent went to the city of Stockton and located the residence of appellant and her husband. They

[221]

found the husband, and with his consent and assistance opened appellant’s trunk and found therein a large quantity of merchandise which had been taken from respondent’s store in Tulare. They also found a number of unopened bundles of merchandise which had been shipped from respondent’s store in Tulare to appellant in Stockton. They also found a number of dresses and other wearing apparel which showed slight wear and which appellant subsequently admitted had been stolen by her from respondent. Appellant had several trunks stored at another address which were opened and found to contain merchandise belonging to respondent. With the consent of appellant’s husband all of the merchandise so recovered, which had not been worn, was shipped back to respondent in Tulare.

On the night, of the same day, and after the new goods had been returned to respondent, appellant and her husband were interviewed by the employees of respondent at their hotel in Stockton. At this conference, according to the testimony of the witnesses for respondent, appellant was informed of the shipment of all the new goods back to respondent. She 'admitted stealing these goods from respondent, as well as the slightly worn merchandise, together with small sums of money, and a large amount of other merchandise, which she had sent as presents to her relatives residing in other .states. The question of making restitution for the stolen money and merchandise which could not be returned, namely, the worn goods and those sent to relatives of appellant, was discussed between appellant and her husband on the one side and R. E. LaPosea and his wife, the employees of respondent, on the other. Mrs LaPosea testified that she listed the articles which appellant admitted stealing from respondent and which were not returned, together with the money taken, and their respective values as given her by appellant, and that this valuation totaled between $1250 and $1300. A paper was prepared for the signature of appellant in which she admitted the thefts of the unreturnable property and the money. Her husband, however, objected to the amount, protesting that the valuation of $1250 was too large. After a considerable discussion it was finally decided by the four that the valuation of the stolen goods which could not be returned, together with the money taken, was $1,000, and that appellant would repay this amount to respondent. The