Appeals, Nos. 65 to 83, inclusive, March T., 1958, from judgments of Court of Quarter Sessions of Dauphin County, March T., 1957, Nos. 105 to 123, inclusive, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stanley Stuart Stone. Judgments affirmed.
G. Thomas Miller, with him Bailey and Rupp, for appellant.
Martin H. Lock, Assistant District Attorney, with him Huette F. Dowling, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 226]
The defendant, Stanley Stuart Stone, waived trial by jury and was found guilty of fraudulent conversion
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 227]
in 19 separate cases tried together before a judge without a jury. His motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were overruled and sentences were imposed. Nineteen separate appeals were then taken by the defendant.
The evidence must be considered by us in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth: Com. v. Mitchell, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 225, 227, 124 A.2d 407.
The pattern of the Commonwealth's evidence was the same in each case. It disclosed that the defendant was president of Protective Credit Association, Inc., a collection agency. The Harrisburg office was under his direct supervision, control and management and he also controlled the various bank accounts of the association and was the only one authorized to sign checks. By various witnesses the Commonwealth proved that accounts were collected in behalf of clients of the association and the money, instead of being turned over to the clients, less commissions, was put into the business of the association.Mrs. Olga Gregor, a former employe of the association, testified in detail in each case as to the manner in which the records of collections were kept. These records of accounts were offered in evidence. She also testified that the defendant "ran the business" and authorized and specifically directed the preparation and mailing of all checks. Corporal Smith of the State Police testified that after the arrest of the defendant he had a conversation with him and the defendant told him he was president of the organization and that what was done was done at his direction. He also testified that the defendant told him that the moneys so collected were put back into the business by him. Marshall Gillard was called by the defense in certain cases. He was an employe of the association in charge of the Reading office. He testified that the defendant was the only one authorized
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 228]
to sign a check and that every bank account was opened and handled by the defendant. He also stated that the defendant decided all questions of policy and administration and controlled all the money. The defendant himself took the stand and admitted in certain cases that collected funds had not been remitted. It is not necessary to recite in detail the evidence in each case. We have reviewed the entire record, ...