## Facts

- Morgan was the local manager of a Western Union office in Irvine, Kentucky and was placed in full charge of the office.
- Western Union kept company funds in a safe at the office; Morgan was given the safe’s combination.
- A duplicate safe combination was sealed and kept by the company’s superintendent in Nashville, Tennessee, and was never opened.
- Inside the safe was a portable steel money box; Morgan was given the keys and used it to store daily receipts.
- About $90 in company funds kept in the money box disappeared after the safe was found open and damaged and the box missing.
- The empty money box was later found some distance away near Morgan’s boarding house.
- Morgan was indicted and tried for grand larceny based on the disappearance of the funds.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the evidence, Morgan had only custody of the company’s funds (supporting larceny) or lawful possession of them (making the offense, if any, embezzlement rather than larceny).
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Morgan’s motion for a peremptory instruction where the Commonwealth’s proof did not establish a trespassory taking from another’s possession.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the grand larceny conviction.
- The court held that the undisputed facts showed Morgan had lawful possession of the funds by virtue of being in full charge and having exclusive operational control over the safe and money box.
- Because larceny requires a trespassory taking from the possession of another, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a larceny conviction.
- The trial court should have granted a peremptory instruction on the larceny charge.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires a trespassory taking and carrying away of another’s property from the owner’s possession.
- Embezzlement applies where the accused lawfully obtains possession of property and later fraudulently converts it to personal use.
- An employee entrusted with general, continuing control over an employer’s funds may have possession rather than mere custody; misappropriation in that setting is embezzlement, not larceny.
- When the prosecution charges larceny, it must prove a taking from another’s possession; proof showing lawful possession in the accused defeats the larceny charge as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Because Morgan’s authority and control over the safe and inner money box placed the company funds in his lawful possession, any wrongful conversion would constitute embezzlement, not larceny; the larceny conviction therefore could not stand and was reversed.


Morgan v. Commonwealth, 242 Ky. 713, 47 S.W.2d 543 (Ky. 1932)