102 A.2d 68 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1954), A-672, State v. Lamoreaux
|Citation:||102 A.2d 68, 29 N.J.Super. 204|
|Opinion Judge:||FRANCIS, J.A.D.|
|Party Name:||STATE v. LAMOREAUX.|
|Attorney:||Walter S. Keown, Camden, argued the cause for the defendant-appellant. Benjamin Asbell, First Asst. Prosecutor of Camden County, Camden, argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent (Mr. Mitchell H. Cohen, prosecutor).|
|Judge Panel:||Before Judges JAYNE, FRANCIS and FREUND.|
|Case Date:||January 06, 1954|
|Court:||Superior Court of New Jersey|
Argued Nov. 30, 1953.
Defendant was convicted of falsely pretending to certain person that defendant would immediately commence construction of home on certain lot and that he had sufficient finances, materials, and labor available to do so. The trial court entered judgment and defendant appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Francis, J.A.D., held that evidence, which varied from and did not support the false pretenses alleged in the indictment, was not sufficient to sustain conviction.
[29 N.J.Super. 205]
Appellant appeals from his third conviction on an indictment charging the crime of false pretenses. The two previous convictions were reversed by the Appellate Division. 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (1951); 20 N.J.Super. 65, 89 A.2d 469 (1952); 26 N.J.Super. 41, 97 A.2d 162 (1953).
The indictment charges that appellant
‘ * * * unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to one Alexander Sabo that He, the said Charles R. Lamoreaux, would immediately commence construction of a home on a certain lot, and that He had sufficient finances, materials and labor available to do so * * *.’
as the result of which Sabo gave Lamoreaux the sum of $1,100
[29 N.J.Super. 206] ‘ * * * which sum the said Charles R. Lamoreaux did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly receive and obtain from the said Alexander Sabo By means of the false representations and pretenses as aforesaid, and with intent to cheat and defraud the said Alexander Sabo of the same; whereas in truth and in fact he, The said Charles R. Lamoreaux did not commence construction on the aforesaid dwelling house on a certain lot, and He did not have sufficient finances, materials or labor available to do so as He, the said Charles R. Lamoreaux then and there well knew * * *.’ (Emphasis supplied.)
On the first appeal, the Appellate Division declared that ‘...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP