Bailey v. State

• Citation: 159 Ala. 4,48 So. 791
• Parties: BAILEY v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 11 February 1909
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

48 So. 791

159 Ala. 4

BAILEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 11, 1909

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; W. H. Thomas, Judge.

Ed Bailey was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John W A. Sanford, Jr., for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses. The indictment is in Code form. Cr. Code 1907, p. 670, form No. 58. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the only question presented for our consideration is the one raised by the demurrer to the indictment. The demurrer takes the point that the indictment fails to allege the name of any person to whom any false representation was made, but instead thereof alleges that the false pretense was made to the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company, a corporation.

So far as we are advised, this is the first time this precise question has ever been presented to this court. The case of White v. State, 86 Ala. 69, 5 So. 674, is somewhat analogous; appellant there having been convicted of attempting to defraud by false pretenses "the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Kentucky." The indictment in that case was not assailed on the point here raised. In 19 Cyc. p. 425 (D), it is said: "An indictment for obtaining property by false pretense must allege specifically that defendant made the pretense in question, and state to whom the pretense was made, and who was defrauded thereby, unless his name is unknown. It is sufficient to allege that the pretense was made to, or that the person defrauded was, a corporation either private or municipal, a firm, or, where the pretense was by advertisement, the public generally." In the case of State v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 44 S.W. 267, the precise question was considered and decided, and it was there held that the indictment was sufficient. In the opinion in that case it is said arguendo: "No one would contend that if representations of the character which defendant is charged with making, were made in writing and addressed to a corporation, it would be necessary to allege that they were relied upon by some particular director or agent of the corporation; and the same rule applies when such statements and representations are verbal." An...