Courtney v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | 31813 |
| Citation | 174 Miss. 147,164 So. 227 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | COURTNEY et al. v. STATE |
1. FALSE PRETENSES.
Evidence that defendant obtained money from another by promise to use it for a specific purpose and then to return it, together with portion of money found, held insufficient to warrant conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses, but evidence disclosed crime of larceny, provided money was obtained with intent to steal (Code 1930, section 919).
2. FALSE PRETENSES.
Word "obtain" within statute providing penalty for obtaining money under false pretenses means acquisition of title to property or ownership thereof, and does not include mere acquisition of possession (Code 1930 section 919).
APPEAL from the circuit court of Sunflower county HON. S.D. NEILL Judge.
Eli Courtney and another were convicted for obtaining money under false pretenses, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Don D. Townsend, of Greenville, and Oscar B. Townsend, of Indianola, for appellants.
The statute under which appellants are indicted is to be strictly construed in favor of defendant.
The pretense must be a representation as to an existing fact or past event, and not as to something to take place in the future.
25 C. J. 589-590; Grigsby's Criminal Law, pages 452, 453.
According to the whole proof offered by the state, the owner who parted with money expressly stated that the proposition made to him was that he would get one-third of the one thousand six hundred dollars and his one hundred dollars back; he never intended to part with the title to the money.
The distinction (between the crimes of larceny and of cheating by false pretenses) is this: If the false pretenses induce the owner to part with his property, intending to transfer both title and possession, the crime is cheating by false pretenses. If, on the other hand, one by fraud, trick, or false pretense induces the owner to part merely with the possession of his property, there being no intent to pass the title, and the party who receives it took it with intent fraudulently to convert it to his own use, the crime is larceny.
State v. Loser, 132 Iowa 419, 427, 104 N.W. 337; Loomis v. People, 67 N.Y. 322, 329, 23 Am. Rep. 123; State v. Anglin, 222 S.W. 776, 777; State v. Anderson, 186 Mo. 25, 38, 84 S.W. 946.
We were of the opinion that the indictment charged a crime against appellants, and therefore did not demur to same, but we submit that the proof fails to substantiate the charges, that the state failed to prove the offense charged, and that the requests for directed verdicts should have been granted.
Dunbar v. State, 130 Miss. 317.
This conviction cannot be based on any false promise of the appellants of something to be done in the future; if it stands it must be based on proof of false pretense relating to past or existing facts.
McKee v. State, 155 So. 888; Hanna v. State, 151 So. 370.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
In the Dixon case, 154 So. 290, the court observed that the transactions, there dealt with, began "with a confidence game attempted to be perpetrated" in the manner thereafter set out. In the case at bar the confidence game was played out to the end and this ignorant, cotton-field negro "taken" to the extent of one hundred dollars.
The testimony of Steve Price is characterized by appellants as being "devoid of intelligence," "so vague," "so indefinite," "so irrational," that it is absolutely worthless. We submit, however, that the witness has told a story about which there is no doubt in the mind of the writer but that this affair happened precisely like he said it did. The method employed is not new, but follows the usual course of "pidgeon dropping," with slight variations to fit the particular circumstances surrounding the parties. All it takes is a smooth tongue and a gullible victim, and it worked on Steve Price.
Without elaborating further, the state submits that the facts of this case show a perfect example of false pretenses and the conviction should be affirmed.
This is an appeal from a conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses. The court below refused to direct a verdict for the appellants.
The indictment alleges, in substance, that the appellants, Eli Courtney and Frank Woods, falsely and feloniously pretended to Steve Price that they had found a pocketbook containing a large sum of money, and that they offered to divide its contents with Price if he would give them a certain sum of money; that Price gave them one hundred dollars, whereas Courtney and Woods had not found a pocketbook or any sum of money.
The appellants introduced no evidence, and that of the state discloses that Price met Woods on the streets of Indianola and immediately thereafter they met Courtney, who said that he had found a pocketbook, showed it to Price and Woods, and asked them "not to give him away," promising if they would not that he would divide the contents with them. To this they agreed. The pocketbook appeared to contain money. Courtney then left them, stating that he would get the money changed, and return. On returning, he stated that he had delivered the pocketbook to a man who was Woods' and his "boss;" that the pocketbook contained one thousand six hundred dollars in money and some bonds; that the "boss" said he would keep the bonds and return the money to Courtney and his companions, provided they would put up one hundred dollars or two hundred dollars to show that they were in good standing. Price then delivered to either Woods or Courtney one hundred dollars in cash, the agreement being that this one hundred dollars was to be returned to him, and, in addition, one-third of the one thousand six hundred dollars. They then agreed to meet later and consummate the deal. Woods and Courtney failed to keep...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaughlin v. City of Canton, Miss.
...variety of frauds that the common law offense of cheating did not encompass. See id. (citing 33 Hen. 8 c. 1); Courtney v. State, 174 Miss. 147, 164 So. 227, 228 (Miss.1935). The English statute which created the offense of false pretenses was adopted in basically the same form by the Missis......
-
Terrell v. State
...intends to transfer title and possession of his property based on the false representations of the defendant. Courtney v. State , 174 Miss. 147, 164 So. 227 (1935). Thus, when Terrell committed timber larceny, McLendon was the victim and Brushy Creek was the unwitting agent carrying out the......
-
Welch v. State
... ... 310; People v ... Selk, 46 Cal.App.2d 140, 115 P.2d 607; People v ... Shwartz, 43 Cal.App. 696, 185 P. 686; People v ... Rabe, 202 Cal. 409, 261 P. 303; State v ... Chamberlain, 215 Iowa 273, 245 N.W. 277; People v ... Barnett, 31 Cal.App.2d 173, 88 P.2d 172; Courtney v ... State, 174 Miss. 147, 164 So. 227; State v. Ewing, ... Mo.App., 270 S.W. 116; State v. Burke, 189 Wis ... 641, 207 N.W. 406; 25 C.J. 657, note 24; United States v ... Mangus, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 596; People v ... Stiller, 255 A.D. 480, 7 N.Y.S.2d 865, affirmed 280 N.Y ... ...
-
Dukes v. State
... ... v. State, 2 Miss. 673; Williams v. State, 63 Miss ... 58; McKinsey v. State, 111 Miss. 780, 72 So. 198. [181 Miss ... We ... submit that the court below erred in refusing to instruct the ... jury to return a verdict of not guilty for Walter Dukes ... Courtney ... v. State, 164 So. 227; Akroyd v. State, 107 Miss ... 51, 64 So. 936 ... The law ... requires that when a false cheek is uttered that no ... prosecution shall be commenced until ten days' written ... notice is given to the maker of the check. The evidence is ... without dispute ... ...