
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS LOGAN TEAL
    No. 7320SC237
    (Filed 13 June 1973)
    Embezzlement § 6— embezzlement of knitted material — sufficiency of evidence
    In a prosecution charging defendant with embezzlement, evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury where it tended to show that it was defendant’s job to take material after it had been removed from knitting machines to an examining room and prepare it for shipment, defendant had no authority to sell any of his employer’s goods and defendant transported some of his employer’s material to South Carolina where he sold it to the operator of a fabric shop.
    Appeal by defendant from Chess, Judge, 23 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Union County.
    Defendant was convicted upon a bill of indictment alleging that he embezzled certain polyester materials belonging to his employer, Monroe Combining Corp. Judgment imposing a prison sentence of five to seven years was entered.
    
      Attorney General Robert Morgan by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., Associate Attorney, for the State.
    
    
      Griffin and Humphries by Charles D. Humphries and James E. Griffin for defendant appellant.
    
   VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion for nonsuit, contending mainly that the State failed to establish that he was entrusted with the possession of the goods. The State’s evidence tends to show the following.

Defendant’s employer produces a knitted polyester fabric. After the material is taken from the knitting machines it was defendant’s job to take the material to an examining room, remove the material from the examining machines, weigh it, place it in plastic bags and prepare it for shipment. He had no authority to sell any of the goods. The knitted goods were supposed to be shipped to another plant for additional processing. Defendant took some of his employer’s knitted material to Florence, South Carolina, and sold it to the operator of a fabric shop for $130.00. He transported the material in the trunk of a car.

We hold that the State’s evidence was sufficient to permit the case to be submitted to the jury. We have considered defendant’s exceptions to the charge and the same are overruled.

No error.

Judges Brock and Morris concur.  