People v. Lyon

THE COURT. From a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand theft, as well as from an order by which his [771]motion for a new trial was denied, defendant has appealed to this court.

As far as concerns a determination of the point presented by appellant to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, the following constitutes a brief summary of the evidence adduced on the trial of the action:

Defendant was engaged in business in the city of Los Angeles as a stock broker. Habitually he made his purchases of stock, either on margin or for cash, through a firm of stock brokers whose business was located in the city of Denver, Colorado. Through defendant and his Denver correspondent, some of defendant’s customers had made large purchases of stock on margins, and on account of such transactions, “on paper” had apparently suffered a considerable pecuniary loss. The several certificates of stock which represented the holdings of such customers of defendant were in the possession of his Denver correspondent, as were some certificates of stock of which defendant was the owner and which had been deposited by defendant with, or which at least were retained by, such Denver correspondent, as security for any indebtedness that might arise or exist against defendant and in favor of said Denver correspondent. In order to retain the good will of his customers who, through their investment with defendant and his Denver correspondent, had lost rather heavily on their marginal investments, defendant took over their rights in their respective holdings and assumed as his own the respective and aggregate losses of such customers. Aside from the obligations thus created, the business of defendant was in a solvent condition; but in connection with the assumed obligations of his customers, the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant was then insolvent. In such state of affairs, defendant received an order from one Dunham to buy for him 200 shares of “Radio”,—on account of which order, and two days after it had been given, Dunham paid to defendant the sum of $770. At the time when such order was given, Dunham told defendant that he was buying the stock for his mother or his mother-in-law, and that, as distinguished by Dunham, the investment was a “cash transaction”; to which statement defendant responded: “That is perfectly all right, Mr. Dunham, I will wire the order today to Denver and I will mail my check today to Denver, making it a cash transac[772]