PEOPLE v. SWANSON (1960)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Victor S. SWANSON and Porter E. Vandewark, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 3745.

Decided: August 31, 1960

Leo R. Friedman, San Francisco, for appellant Swanson. Gregory S. Stout, San Francisco, for appellant Vandewark. Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., of the State of Cal., Doris H. Maier, Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attys. Gen., Thos. Lynch, Dist. Atty., Francis Mayer, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., San Francisco, for respondent.

Appellant Swanson's petition for rehearing asserts that there is no evidence that he told the bookkeeper to enter the price of the union cars at $3,000 each.

But the bookkeeper testified: ‘I got the information from Mr. Swanson that there was seven cars' (R.T. 42). His attention was directed to the time he made the entries in the union books, and he was asked ‘And in your talks with Mr. Swanson about this $21,000 for these cars, his statements to you were that this $21,000 was for the cars going to the union, isn't that right?’ He answered ‘Yes, sir’ (R.T. 71). Swanson himself testified of the bookkeeper ‘I didn't ask him anything. I told him what to do.’ Asked ‘You had complete authority over Mr. Garrett, isn't that right?’ Swanson answered ‘Yes, He worked for me, that is, I hired him’ (R.T. 335). We think this evidence alone amply warrants the conclusion, obviously drawn by the jury, that Swanson directed the entries.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network