{
  "id": 8512747,
  "name": "STATE v. HILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 2122",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.M. 344"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.284616430089508e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38728628580276303
    },
    "sha256": "0031f1725bc1714a9a9878065c1829f449ee08cbdffa003e1013a54f15aacc6a",
    "simhash": "1:4427620b82f76806",
    "word_count": 473
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:01.531347+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HaNNA, C. J., and Parker, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HILL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nROBERTS, J.\nAppellant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, and appeals. The first ground relied upon for a reversal is that fhe court erred in not sustaining his motion in arrest of judgment. This motion challenged the sufficiency of the indictment. The indictment was drawn under section 1544,' Code 1915, which makes it larceny for any officer, agent, clerk, or servant of \u25a0 any incorporated company, etc., except apprentices and other persons under the age of 16 years, to embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use any money or property of another which shall have come into his possession or shall be under his care by virtue of such employment. The point macle against the indictment is that it does not charge that the property embezzled came into the possession of appellant by virtue of his employment. The language in this respect is as follows:\n\u201cDid then and there bv virtue of his said employment as such clerk * * *, have in his possession and under his care, custody, and control of the property and moneys of.\u201d\nThe alleged defect is occasioned by the use of the word \"of\u201d before the words \"the property,\u201d but this does not destroy the sense of the indictment, and does not render it defective. Where the sense of an indictment is clear, nice or technical exceptions are not to be favorably regarded; therefore verbal inaccuracies, or clerical errors which are explained and corrected by necessary intendment from other parts of the indictment, are not fatal. 22 Cyc. 291. The indictment here, read as a whole, clearly shows that the appellant was charged to have had the property in question under his care, custody, and control.\nAnother objection to the indictment is that'the pleader used the words \u201cby reason of\u201d his said employment, instead of \u201cby virtue of.\u201d What has been said disposes of this objection.\nThe remaining points upon which appellant relied for a reversal all go to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We have read the transcript, and have considered all the objections stated, and find that there is no merit in any of them.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment will be affirmed; and it is so ordered.\nHaNNA, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ROBERTS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\"Wade & Tayloe, of L&s Cruces, for appellant. C. A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 2122,\nMarch 12, 1918.]\nSTATE v. HILL.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\nWhere the sense of an indictment is clear, nice or technical exceptions are not to be favorably regarded; therefore verbal inaccuracies, or clerical' errors wbicb are explained and corrected by necessary intendment from other parts of the indictment are not fatal.\nAppeal from District Court, Dona Ana County; Medler, Judge.\nFred Lehman Hill was convicted of embezzlement, and be appeals.\nAffirmed.\n\"Wade & Tayloe, of L&s Cruces, for appellant. C. A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 364
}