Commonwealth v. Crowley

• Decision Date: 29 November 1926
• Citation: 154 N.E. 326,257 Mass. 590
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CROWLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

257 Mass. 590

154 N.E. 326

COMMONWEALTH

v.CROWLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Nov. 29, 1926.

Report from Superior Criminal Court, Middlesex County; G. A. Flynn, Judge.

James H. Crowley was convicted of larceny. On report. Conviction to stand.

R. T. Bushnell, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the commonwealth.

F. J. Carney, of Boston (J. E. Swift and J. A. Canavan, both of Boston, on the brief), for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The defendant was found guilty of larceny. The indictment was under G. L. c. 266, § 30, which provides, so far as material, that:

‘Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud, obtains by a false pretense, * * * the money or personal chattel of another, * * * shall be guilt of larceny.’

The defendant on March 1, 1925, and for several years prior thereto, was a member of the board of health of the town of Holliston, which town had a population of less than 5,000 inhabitants. There was evidence that one Katseff, who conducted a Jewish slaughtering business in Holliston, talked with the defendant in April, 1923, concerning Katseff's business, and was informed by the defendant that he could not have a license that year. Some time later, Katseff asked the defendant, ‘What was the matter I got no license?’ The defendant replied, ‘What you think? I can work for a little money in the town?’ The defendant was asked what he wanted and answered, ‘I want a hundred dollars.’ Katseff offered to pay $25. The defendant refused this and insisted on ‘not less than a hundred dollars.’ Katseff testified that he paid the defendant $25 and about two weeks later sent him $75; that when he paid $25 the defendant said, ‘I give-you go ahead now and get it, you know, you get it, a paper, * * * and you get the license now.’

Before and at the time of this conversation, the selectmen of Holliston, who had authority under the statute to grant a slaughter house license, had in their possession a written protest signed by the board of health against the granting of a license to Katseff. The selectmen informed him he would not receive a permit to remove his slaughter house from Hill street to Washington street. Katseff presented a petition for a license on Hill street, which was signed by the members of the board of health. Before the license was granted on May 1, 1923, a letter, dated April 30, 1923, addressed to the selectmen, was filed with them; this letter was signed by all the members of the board of health, and in it they withdrew opposition to the granting of the license.

Katseff further testified that the defendant told him, when he paid the $100, ‘I can get it a license’; that ‘he told me he will lock me up, so I pay’; that he paid the money so as to get the ‘slaughtering house permit’; that he knew the board of selectmen granted the license; that he paid the money to the defendant because he was a member of the board of health; that the defendant told him, ‘If we didn't pay him he would put us out of business and take our license away;’ that the defendant said, ‘You not pay me * * * I will lock you up.’

Rebecca Katseff testified that in May, 1923, she went to the defendant's house with $75 of her father's money; that she asked the defendant ‘why we had to pay him, and he told me if we didn't pay him he would close up our business and take our license away’; that ‘he was the boss in the town; * * * that he could do as much as he pleased.’ Katseff's wife testified that the defendant said to her, ‘You not send me the money I will take away the license and I will close up your business;’ that following this statement she sent the defendant $25.

The defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied and the defendant excepted. The case was reported to this court.

[1][2] The defendant contends that no false representation of a present or past fact was made by the defendant; that the alleged misrepresentations had reference to a future situation, and were insufficient in law to support an indictment for larceny in obtaining money by false pretenses. If the evidence of the commonwealth were believed by the jury they could have found that the defendant falsely represented that he had the power to deprive Katseff of his license; that possessing this power he could close up the business of Katseff and ‘lock * * * [him] up’; that he (the defendant) ‘was the boss in the town’; that ‘he could do as much as he pleased.’ The defendant, the jury could have found, obtained the money from Katseff by means of false pretenses of present facts; his false statement of his power and authority to do something in the future was a misrepresentation of a present fact. Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446;Commonwealth v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16;Commonwealth v. Althause, 207 Mass. 32, 47, 48, 93 N. E. 202. The jury could have found that the statements of the defendant were made with the intent to deceive; that although Katseff knew the authority to grant a license for the slaughter house was with the board of selectmen, he in fact gave the money to the defendant relying on the misrepresentations and hoping that by paying the money he could continue in his business and be saved from arrest. Commonwealth v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179, 184, 21 N. E. 299.

[3][4] ...