Commonwealth v. White

• Decision Date: 21 January 1904
• Docket Number: 10-1904
• Citation: 24 Pa.Super. 178
• Parties: Commonwealth, Appellant, v. White
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

24 Pa.Super. 178

Commonwealth, Appellant, v. White

No. 10-1904

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 21, 1904

Argued December 7, 1903

Appeal by Commonwealth, from order of Q. S. York Co., Aug. T., 1902 No. 37, quashing indictment in case of Commonwealth v. Walter B. White.

Motion to quash indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses. Before Bittenger, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Error assigned was order quashing the indictment.

Allen C. Wiest, district attorney, with him John A. Hoober, for appellant. -- To say a certain statement or representation " is false" undoubtedly negatives it as clearly certainly and forcibly as to say that " it is not true:" Com. v. Max Rosenberg, 3 Lancaster Law Rev. 75.

The third objection to the indictment, -- " Because there is in said indictment no allegation as to how the money was obtained from the prosecutor -- whether as a gift, a loan, or otherwise," can have no force; for it is immaterial for what purpose the property was delivered; if the other elements of the offense are present the defendant is guilty Com. v. McCoy, 10 Pa.Super. 598; Com. v Johnston, 19 Pa.Super. 241; Com. v. Bachop, 2 Pa.Super. 294; Com. v. Howells, 18 Pa.Super. 323; Com. v. New Bethlehem Boro., 15 Pa.Super. 158; Com. v. Frey, 50 Pa. 245; Com. v. Sober, 15 Pa.Super. 520; Sherban v. Com., 8 Watts, 212.

If there are any formal defects in the indictment, which we do not concede, the court should have given the commonwealth an opportunity to amend: Gorman v. Com., 124 Pa. 536; Com. v. Williams, 149 Pa. 54; Com. v. Barge, 11 Pa.Super. 164.

J. S. Black, for appellee.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

This is an appeal by the commonwealth from the action of the court of quarter sessions of York county in quashing an indictment charging the defendant with having obtained money under false pretenses. The motion to quash contains the following reasons: " First, because there is in said indictment no statement showing wherein the pretenses alleged are false. Second, because the allegation relied upon as false is not in said indictment negatived. Third, because there is in said indictment no allegation as to how the money was obtained from the prosecutor -- whether as a gift, a loan, or otherwise."

Upon this motion the court entered the following order: " And now, October 22, 1903, on the motion filed, this indictment is quashed as not legally charging an indictable offense as required by law and for the reasons set out in the said motion to quash; same day an exception is asked by the district attorney and exception sealed." The foregoing, with a copy of the indictment, comprise the record as presented here.

By the code of penal procedure of March 31, 1860, section 11, " Every indictment shall be deemed and adjudged sufficient and good in law which charges the crime substantially in the language of the act of assembly prohibiting the crime and prescribing the punishment, if any there be, or, if at common law, so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury." The effect of this provision has repeatedly been considered by the Supreme Court and by this court, and a review of the authorities, with the conclusions resting on them, will be found in Com. v. Howells, 18 Pa.Super. 323, and Com. v. Johnston, 19 Pa.Super. 241, the latest reported cases on the subject. Nothing is necessary here but the application of settled principles.

In the case before us the commonwealth alleges a violation of the following provision of the penal code of March 31, 1860, section 111: " If any person shall, by any false pretense, obtain from any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security, with intent to cheat and defraud any person of the same, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

With respect to some offenses made punishable by statute, the language employed in describing them is so general in character that an indictment which merely followed the language of the act, in charging the crime, would not state the offense with such certainty or particularity that...