Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/867

STATE v. UGLAND 848 to establish ownership in persons alleged to be owners in indictment is not fatal, where there was evidence tending to identify property as being property described in indictment. People v. Bolanger, 71 Cal. 17, 11 Pac. 799.

“Proof that person alleged to be owner had special property or that he held it to do some act upon it or for purpose of carriage or in trust for the benefit of another, would be sufficient to support allegation of ownership in indictment.” People v. Nelson, 56 Cal. 77.

“Fact that property stolen was in possession of person alleged to be owner at time of taking sufficient to establish ownership.” People v. David, 97 Cal. 194; People v. Oldham, 111 Cal. 652, 44 Pac. 312.

It is proper in a prosecution for larceny to describe the property as that of the real owner or of the person in possession and it may be alleged to be the property of one who is in possession as bailee, agent, trustee, executor or administrator, and such bailee, trustee, etc., may be alleged to be the owner thereof by name without describing his trust connection. State v. Tillett, (Ind.) 89 N. E. 589; Wharton’s Crim. Law. 10th ed. 750; McLain’s Criminal Law, 546, 22 Cyc. 462; United States v. Barlow, 24 Fed. Cas. 1007; State v. Summerville, 21 Me. 14, 38 Am. Dec. 248; State v. Stanley, 48 Iowa, 221; Edison v. State 47 N. E. 625.

It is well settled that the ownership may be laid either in the real owner or in the person in whose possession the property was at the time of the theft as bailee, agent, trustee, executor or administrator. 17 R. C. L. 66; 17 R. C. L. 68; Hildebrand v. People, 56 N. Y. 394, 15 Amer. Rep. 435; Wharton’s Crim. Procedure, 10th ed., 861.

A person obtaining possession of money for a pretended purpose of betting on a sham race, and converting it, has been held guilty of larceny. State v. Ryan, Ore. 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 862.

If the defendant, with a design to steal the property, obtains pos- session of it by fraud, the taking of it is larceny. Gillett Crim. Law, 2nd ed. 540; Crum v. State, 148 Ind. 401, 47 N. E. 833.

Where any person, whether servant or not, has the bare charge or care of another’s effects, the legal possession remaining in the owner, the party is guilty of larceny who fraudulently converts it to his own use. Johan Williams v. State of Ind. 75 N. E. 875, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 248.