Compton v. State

• Decision Date: 26 February 1930
• Docket Number: No. 25364.,25364.
• Citation: 170 N.E. 325,201 Ind. 535
• Parties: COMPTON v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

201 Ind. 535

170 N.E. 325

COMPTON

v.STATE.

No. 25364.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 26, 1930.

Appeal from Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Charles Bock, Judge.

Roy Compton was convicted of obtaining merchandise by means of false pretenses, and he appeals. Reversed with directions.Lorin H. Kiely, of Evansville, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Bernard A. Keltner, Deputy Atty. Gen, for the State.

WILLOUGHBY, J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of obtaining merchandise by means of false pretenses. The trial was by the court without a jury. After a motion for a new trial had been made, and judgment had been rendered upon the finding of the court, he brings this appeal.

[1] The appellant says that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit. He contends that the facts stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense; that the affidavit does not state the offense charged with sufficient certainty.

This prosecution is based on section 2947, Burns' Ann. St. 1926, and alleges that Roy Compton, on or about the 21st day of October A. D. 1926, at said county of Vanderburgh, state of Indiana, as affiant verily believes, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and designedly, with intent to defraud one Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, falsely pretend to said Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, that he, said Roy Compton, was one Edwin P. Bowman, and that he was the duly authorized agent of the Bowman Store of Graville, Ill., a company having and enjoying a high credit rating in the commercial world, and that, as said agent of said Bowman Store, he, the said, Roy Compton, desired to purchase from said Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, certain articles of merchandise of the value of $384.96; that by means of such false pretenses, the said Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, relying upon and believing the same to be true, said Roy Compton did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and designedly, obtain from the said Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, the following described merchandise and personal property, to wit: Here the articles are set out in the indictment, and it alleges that they were of the value of $384.96. The affidavit further alleges that in truth and in fact, said representations so made were false in the following respects, to wit: Said Roy Compton was not the said Edwin P. Bowman, and said Roy Compton was not the authorized agent of the said Bowman Store, and the said Roy Compton was not purchasing said merchandise from said Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, on behalf of and for the sole use of said Bowman Store, then and there being.

The affidavit does not allege that the Parsons & Scoville Company, a corporation, was the owner of the property alleged to have been obtained by false pretenses, and the affidavit fails to allege who was the owner of the property charged to have been obtained by false pretenses.

[2] To constitute a good charge for obtaining money or property by false pretenses, it must be shown that the injured party was deceived by the false representation and induced by such deceit to part with his money or property. State v. Williams, 103 Ind. 235, 2 N. E. 585;State v. Connor, 110 Ind. 469, 11 N. E. 454;State v. Miller, 153 Ind. 229, 54 N. E. 808;McCrann v. State, 189 Ind. 677, 128 N. E. 848.

An indictment which avers that, for the purpose of obtaining credit, certain false representations were made, and, by the means of said representations thus made, the defendant then and there obtained from, etc., certain goods, does not sufficiently show that the goods were delivered to him. The affidavitis insufficient for failure to show the ownership of the property alleged to have been procured by false pretenses. Leobold v. State, 33 Ind. 485;Halley v. State, 43 Ind. 509;Green v. State, 157 Ind. 101, 60 N. E. 941; State v. Miller, supra.

An affidavit charging...