Com. v. Beckett

• Decision Date: 09 February 1905
• Citation: 119 Ky. 817,84 S.W. 758
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BECKETT.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

84 S.W. 758

119 Ky. 817

COMMONWEALTH v. BECKETT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 9, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bracken County.

"To be officially reported."

Joseph Beckett was indicted for obtaining money under false pretenses, and from an order sustaining a demurrer to the indictment the commonwealth appeals. Reversed.

Ed Daum, Com. Atty., and N. B. Hays, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

O'REAR J.

This appeal involves the sufficiency of an indictment against appellee charging him with obtaining money and property under false pretenses. Ky. St. 1903, § 1208. A demurrer was sustained to the indictment. It is charged that appellee fraudulently, knowingly, and with the wicked intent to deceive and defraud one William C. French, induced the latter to part with $2.50 lawful money of the United States, which belonged to said French, in exchange in part for a $10 bill of the Confederate States of America. The particulars of the transaction were set forth in the indictment, the substance of which is that appellee and said French swapped horses, it being agreed that appellee was to pay French $7.50 to boot. The horses were exchanged, and appellee handed French a $10 Confederate bill, with the remark, "Give me $2.50, here is a ten dollar bill." French, believing it was a bill for $10 of lawful money--its appearance being quite similar to the treasury silver certificates for that sum--gave appellee the $2.50, and accepted the Confederate bill as good money, without knowledge or suggestion that it was what it was. It is charged that appellee knew at the time that it was a Confederate bill, and intended by his words and conduct to deceive French into believing it was a bill of lawful currency, and did so deceive him. It is said that the indictment was held to be bad because there was no specific statement by appellee that the bill was United States currency.

The statute is (section 1208): "If any person by false pretenses, statement or token, with intention to commit a fraud, obtain from another money, property or other thing which may be the subject of larceny, *** he shall be confined in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years." It seems to be conceded that all the conditions of the statute are satisfied except that of the false pretense, statement, or token. It is the deceit, falsely and fraudulently superinduced by a beneficiary, whereby the latter obtains money or property of value, that is sought to be repressed by the statute. When one intentionally creates a belief as to an existing fact which is false, and with the intent to defraud another of his property, and does so, it cannot matter whether the erroneous belief was induced by words or acts, or both. The mischief may be done as effectually by one method as by another. Some words, by their common employment, may imply other words not spoken. A proposition to sell an article for $10, without designating the currency in which the price is to be paid, in this country implies that the seller is to get lawful money or currency of the United States of America. When the buyer agrees to pay the price, and offers a bill in payment purporting to be a bill of the currency of the circulating medium of the country, it is implied that he thereby represents that it is of that currency, if nothing to the contrary is stated. This amounts to an assertion or representation by conduct, which may be as efficacious to convey an idea, or to constitute the basis of a reasonable belief, as though exact and appropriate words had been used. Words are used to express ideas. Signs might be used instead. Conduct that conveys necessarily the same idea, and intended to do so, is but a substitute for the words or signs expressive of it. We have no doubt but that the use of a worthless bill, pretending it is valid, and with the intent to defraud, is a false token under the statute. State v Pattilo, 11 N.C. 348; State v. Stroll, 1 Rich. Law (S. C.) 244; State v. Grooms, 5 Strob. L. (S C.) 158. It may be said that a false representation or token is not within the statute "unless calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and discretion." 2 Whart. Crim. Law, 2129; Commonwealth v. Grady, 13 Bush, 285, 26 Am. Rep. 192. This is true only in a limited sense, for the statute was not...