Territory v. Yet, 1518.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 1518.,1518. |
| Citation | 27 Haw. 693 |
| Parties | TERRITORY v. CHONG PANG YET. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT FIRST CIRCUIT. HON. R. J. O'BRIEN, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
A conviction of the offense of violating section 4007, R. L. 1915, relating to the issuance of checks without funds in the bank may be had where the check was given in part payment of an existing indebtedness.
Where the intent of the accused is in issue evidence of other acts and doings of the accused of a kindred character are admissible as tending to show his intent in the particular case for which he is being tried.I. M. Stainback (also on the briefs) for plaintiff in error.
N. D. Godbold, Deputy City and County Attorney ( W. H. Heen, City and County Attorney, with him on the briefs), for the Territory.
Appellant was tried and convicted before a jury upon a charge of, on the 23d day of June, 1923, violating section 4007, R. L. 1915, by wilfully making, drawing, uttering and delivering to one Ko Chin a check on the Liberty Bank for the sum of $500 with intent to defraud the payee, the appellant knowing that he had not sufficient funds or credit with the bank to meet such check upon its presentation, from which conviction appellant has come here upon writ of error.
The first error relied on by appellant is in effect that the verdict of conviction is contrary to the law, the evidence and the weight of the evidence. At the time the check was given appellant was indebted to the complaining witness in an amount exceeding $500, and the check given purported to be in part payment of said indebtedness. Such being the case, appellant contends that the complaining witness was defrauded of nothing and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. It is argued by appellant that, since he obtained nothing from the complaining witness in return for the worthless check, the complaining witness, after receiving the check, was not defrauded and was in no wise worse off than he was before.
With this contention we cannot agree and we cannot say as a matter of law that, by reason of the deception practiced upon him by appellant, the complaining witness was not defrauded. At the time the check was given the creditor had the right to receive immediate payment of the debt due him and to take immediate steps towards the recovery thereof, and he was deprived and defrauded of such right by being induced to forego, albeit for a limited time, the immediate enforcement of his right.
The only other error relied upon is the admission of testimony, over the objection of the defendant, showing the giving by defendant of a check to another person than the complaining witness upon a different bank, the defendant not having sufficient funds or credit in said bank to meet the same.
Testifying on his own behalf at the trial, defendant admitted having given the check for $500 to the complaining witness; and that at that time he knew that he had neither funds nor credit with the bank sufficient to meet the check when presented. Defendant also testified that, when he gave the check, he told the complaining witness that he had no funds in the bank, and that complaining witness agreed to hold the check until a later period at which time defendant expected to have sufficient funds on deposit at the bank. This was denied by the complaining witness. Defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial