People v. Corbin

FREEMAN, J., pro tem.

The defendant was charged with grand theft in two counts. He was acquitted as to count one and convicted on count two. Count two alleged: “That on or about the 13th day of January, 1931, at and within said County of Orange, State of California, the crime of felony, to wit: grand theft was committed by Claude Corbin, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did then and there wilfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away 79 shares of Southern California Edison Company Common Stock of the value of $3500.00 in gold coin of the United States, the personal property of Martin Hayes.”

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying a new trial and contends there were three errors committed in the trial court which would entitle him to a new trial.

The first contention is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. There is ample evidence in the record of the following facts: That Martin Hayes was a man eighty-nine years old and in a somewhat senile and childish condition of mind; that he was the owner of 79 shares of common stock in the Southern California Edison Company, worth at least $3,500, which stock he had previously purchased through appellant; that at some time in December, 1930, appellant sold to Hayes certain shares of Pickwick Airways stock, receiving therefor a check for $2,000; that subsequently Hayes expressed the desire to exchange his Pickwick Airways stock for additional shares of Edison common and that on January 13, 1931, appellant told Hayes that he had found a company that would trade Edison stock for Pickwick stock; that he needed more Pickwick shares in order to put over the deal and that he would also have to have the 79 shares of Edison common in order to make the exchange. Thereupon Hayes delivered both the 79 shares

[394]

of Edison common and the Pickwick stock to appellant. Some three or four days later appellant handed a stock certificate to Hayes which Hayes thought was Edison common, and which he put into his safety deposit box. The evidence shows that Hayes was hardly able to read because of age. Appellant testified that he did not tell Hayes that this was a certificate of stock in “Big Bear Trust”, which it was, but that he referred to it as “trust”. Hayes did not discover that he did not have Edison stock until some time later. It is admitted by the defendant and testified to by Hayes that at no time did he want any stock except Edison common. The evidence also shows that on January 17, 1931, appellant sold the Edison stock which he had thus obtained from Hayes for $3,653.35; that he deposited this sum in a bank to his own credit; that he checked out practically the entire amount on his own personal account, and that on February 11, 1931, he had checked out all of the money except a balance of $6.36. The evidence shows that appellant never returned the Edison stock to Hayes nor paid back the money he had received from its sale. The evidence is ample to show that appellant did not use the stock for the purpose for which he had represented to Hayes it would be used, and that he converted the money to his own use and benefit. Under our statutes his acts constitute grand theft and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.