State v. Lamoreaux
| Decision Date | 25 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A--210,A--210 |
| Citation | 26 N.J.Super. 41,97 A.2d 162 |
| Parties | STATE v. LAMOREAUX. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Walter S. Keown, Camden, for appellant.
Benjamin Asbell, First Asst. Pros., Camden, for respondent (Mitchell Cohen, Pros. of Camden County, Camden).
Before Judges EASTWOOD, BIGELOW and JAYNE.
The opinion of the court was delivered
This defendant upon a retrial has again been convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of R.S. 2:134--1, now N.J.S. 2A:111--1, N.J.S.A. Information concerning the allegations of the indictment, the reversal of his first conviction and his alleged immunity from a second trial is contained in the previous decisions of this division reported in 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (1951) and in 20 N.J.Super. 65, 89 A.2d 469 (1952). A reiteration of it here would be redundant.
In the decision resulting in the reversal of the defendant's first conviction it was held that the mere alleged false representation that the defendant 'would immediately commence construction' of the home did not of itself charge him with the commission of a crime comprehended by the statute. It was, though, therein stated that the allegation that the defendant knowingly misrepresented that he had 'sufficient finances, materials and labor' immediately to commence construction of the house does charge designed misrepresentation of existing facts or conditions and alleges the crime of false pretense under the statute.
Notwithstanding the declared legal insufficiency of the former alleged pretense, the trial judge inadvertently delivered the following instructions to the jury at the second trial and ignored the registered objection taken thereto:
'Now, the charge, members of the Jury, in this indictment is 'that he would immediately commence construction of a home on a certain lot, and that he had sufficient finances, materials and labor available to do so,' so that They are the charges that are set forth in this indictment and the State contends Those charges were false, that the defendant knew they were false, and that the Sabos, relying upon said statements, parted with their money, and the money was obtained by the defendant with the intent to cheat and defraud the Sabos, So that it is upon those specific allegations in the indictment that the defendant can be convicted, if you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'
It seems manifest that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lamoreaux, A--672
...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 '* * * unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to one Alexander Sabo that He, the said Char......
- U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Davis
-
State v. Mitchell
... ... State v. Vanderbilt, 27 N.J.L. 328 (Sup.Ct.1859). Further, the representations alleged to be false must be of something which at the time was untrue, and made with intent to cheat and defraud. State v. Lamoreaux, 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951), 26 N.J.Super. 41, 97 A.2d 162 (App.Div.1953), 29 N.J.Super. 204, 102 A.2d 68 (App.Div. 1954), affirmed 16 N.J. 167, 107 A.2d 729 (1954) ... The record is absolutely devoid of any testimony that Mitchell said he owned the lot in fee ... ...
- State v. Lamoreaux