Anthony v. State

Decision Date15 February 1923
Docket Number22837
CitationAnthony v. State, 109 Neb. 608, 192 N.W. 206 (Neb. 1923)
PartiesPERRY ANTHONY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

ERROR to the district court for Lancaster county: ELLIOTT J CLEMENTS, JUDGE. Reversed.

REVERSED.

Doyle & Halligan, for plaintiff in error.

Clarence A. Davis, Attorney General, and Mason Wheeler, contra.

Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ROSE, DEAN, DAY and FLANSBURG, JJ SHEPHERD, District Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In the district court for Lancaster county Perry Anthony, defendant, was prosecuted under the statute declaring:

"Whoever by false pretense or pretenses shall obtain from any other person, corporation, association, or partnership, any money, goods, merchandise, credit or effects whatsoever with intent to cheat or defraud such person, corporation, association, or partnership of the same, or shall sell, lease or transfer any void or pretended patent right or certificate of stock in a pretended corporation and take the promissory note or other valuable thing of such purchaser, or shall fraudulently make and transfer any bill, bond, deed of sale, benefit or grant or other conveyance to defraud his creditors of their just demands, or shall obtain the signature or indorsement of any person to any promissory note, bank draft, bill of exchange, or any other instrument in writing, fraudulently or by mispresentation, if the value of the property or promissory note or written instrument or credit, fraudulently obtained or conveyed as aforesaid, shall be thirty-five dollars, or upwards, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years nor less than one year; but if the value of the property be less than thirty-five dollars, the person so offending shall be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars or be imprisoned in the jail of the county not exceeding thirty days and be liable to the party injured in the amount of damage sustained." Comp. St. 1922, sec. 9892.

The indictment consisted of ten counts, but defendant was answerable only under the fifth, which follows:

"And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the state of Nebraska, do further present that Perry Anthony and Jacob C. Liesveld on or about the 22d day of November, 1919, in the county of Lancaster and state of Nebraska, then and there being, did then and there intending unlawfully and fraudulently to cheat and defraud Julia Nahley falsely, knowingly, designedly unlawfully and feloniously, pretend, state and represent to the said Julia Nahley that they were the agents of and for the Lincoln Auto & Tractor School of Lincoln, Nebraska, a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Nebraska, and that they were employed by said Lincoln Auto & Tractor School to sell the common stock of said corporation; that said common stock of said corporation which they then and there offered for sale to the said Julia Nahley was treasury stock of said Lincoln Auto & Tractor School and that said Lincoln Auto & Tractor School had been and was selling said common stock of said corporation for $ 210 per share, and that said common stock was of the fair and reasonable market value of $ 210 per share, and that the said common stock of the said Lincoln Auto & Tractor School had paid thirty per cent. dividends for and during the preceding year; that both said defendants owned the same kind of stock of the aforesaid company that they were then and there offering for sale to the said Julia Nahley, and that they and each of them had paid $ 210 per share for said common stock; that relying upon said false statements, pretenses and representations of the said Perry Anthony and Jacob C. Liesveld made as aforesaid, the said Julia Nahley did then and there purchase, take and receive from the said Perry Anthony and Jacob C. Liesveld thirty (30) shares of the common stock of the Lincoln Auto & Tractor School of Lincoln, Nebraska, a corporation, and did then and there execute and deliver to the said Perry Anthony and Jacob C. Liesveld her negotiable promissory note in the sum of $ 6,300, of the value of $ 6,300, signed by herself or order and by herself then and there indorsed with her signature; that said statements, representations and pretenses so made by the said Perry Anthony and Jacob C. Liesveld were wholly false; and the said Perry Anthony and ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Dutiel v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1939
    ...or imperfection which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits." In Anthony v. State, 109 Neb. 608, 192 N.W. 206, 207, court stated: " This statute was not intended to deprive accused of a substantial right, to his prejudice. Under our system......