People v. Anderson

YORK, J.

Upon an information filed by the district attorney, containing four counts, appellant wa,s convicted of the crime of grand theft by way of embezzlement.

Appellant was employed by the California Auto Salon, Ltd., as cashier and bookkeeper from May 1, 1929, to approximately November 20, 1931, during which period she

[662]

had exclusive control and custody of cash and checks turned in by salesmen of the company in the conduct of the business of selling automobiles, and was accustomed to deposit same in the bank. It is an undisputed fact that the books were kept by appellant, and that, except for a very few; items, the records were wholly in the handwriting of said appellant.

Appellant makes two points upon this appeal: 1. That the books of the California Auto Salon, Ltd., were not admissible in evidence against the defendant. 2. That the court erred in permitting the expert accountant Zeitlen to testify to his deductions and summaries made and arrived at through the documents; instruments .not offered in evidence, not produced in court, and not shown to be in the handwriting of the defendant.

In support of her first point, appellant maintains that the one purpose for which the boobs were offered was to show that defendant did not keep correct books, and to prove that they were falsified for the purpose of enabling her to perpetrate the crime, or for the purpose of embezzlement ; and that, under such circumstances, they could not be received in evidence as regular entries made in the course of business; that the presumption of their correctness is destroyed, and they are not offered as proof of the facts recited; citing

People

v.

Blackman,

127 Cal. 248 [59 Pac. 573, 574].

In the Blackman ease it was held that evidence of entries in the books of the corporation of which the defendant was secretary was, under the circumstances of that case, inadmissible to prove the charge of embezzling the funds of said corporation. There, at the time of the trial, the bookkeeper who made the entries was dead, and the books or their contents were allowed to go into the record as evidence of the) defendant’s guilt without proof having been made that he ever examined the books or that he knew anything of their contents. The court there said: “If there was evidence that the entries were made by the defendant or under his direction, or with his knowledge, they would most undoubtedly be competent and important evidence against him.”