1875.] THE STATE v. BROOKS. 63
Statement of the case.
HELD, ON REHEAIING.
4. A deputy sheriff is an officer within the meaning of the law punishing
embezzlement of public money.
APPEAL from Marion. Tried below before the IHon.
James M. Rogers.
By indictment it was charged that AM. N. Brooks, "an
officer of the Government, to wit, a deputy sheriff in and
for the county of Marion, and by virtue of his said office
then and there by law a receiver of public money, to wit,
a collector of the taxes for said county, and authorized to
collect and receive the moneys due the Government of
Texas, and then and there acting in said office, did * * *
take, misapply, and convert to his own use a part of the
money intrusted to him as aforesaid, to wit, the sum of
one thousand dollars, money collected by him as aforesaid
for the State of Texas from the citizens of Marion
county, Texas, for the year 1872," &c.
Defendant excepted to the indictment1.
Because he was not shown to be such an officer of
the Government as is included in the terms of the statute
defining and punishing embezzlement.
2. Because it was not shown that he was a receiver or
collector of any public money due the State.
3. Because, as shown by the bill, there could exist no
trust relation between him and the State.
4. Because it is not shown that he ever collected or received
any money from or on account of the State.
5. No fraudulent intent is charged.
6. The indictment fails to show the kind or character of
money received or appropriated by the defendant.
7. It is not shown when, from whom, or what amount of
money was collected or received.
8. The official character of the defendant is not shown
at the time the money was received.
9. Duplicity; and
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42.. St. Louis, Mo.. The Portal to Texas History. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/. Accessed May 3, 2016.