Cousins v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4207 |
| Citation | 151 S.W.2d 658,202 Ark. 500 |
| Parties | COUSINS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.
W L. Curtis, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant was found guilty of three separate violations of § 785a, Pope's Digest, and from judgments sentencing him to the penitentiary is this appeal.
The indictment in each case charged that appellant, with the fraudulent intent to cheat the First National Bank of Paris, Arkansas, drew, uttered and delivered to the payees named checks, which were deposited by the payees with said bank in Paris, and which were not honored by the Missouri Valley Trust Company of St. Joseph, Missouri, the bank on which they were drawn, on presentation for payment. Appellant's explanation of his good faith was not accepted by the jury, and, without reciting the testimony, it may be said that it is legally sufficient to support the allegations of facts contained in the indictments.
Act 258 passed at the 1913 session of the General Assembly (page 1066), is entitled "An act to regulate the giving and making of checks and overdrafts," which, as amended by act 304 of the Acts of 1929 (page 1309, vol. 2), appears as §§ 785a and 785b, Pope's Digest, which sections read as follows:
These sections were read to the jury as instructions in the case.
The essence of this offense is the drawing of a check, draft, or order for the payment of money, upon any bank, or other depository, by one who knows, when the check is drawn, that he does not have on deposit sufficient funds for the payment of the check or draft in full upon its presentation for payment.
Our laws have no extraterritorial effect, and § 785a, Pope's Digest, means, of course, the drawing of a check or draft upon some bank or depository in this state. The checks here in question were not drawn on any bank in this state, but were drawn on a bank in the state of Missouri. They were deposited, for collection and account, in a bank in this state; but they might have been deposited, for collection and account, in a bank in another state, and conceivably in a state having no statute similar to § 785a, Pope's Digest.
The question here is not whether appellant committed a fraud which constitutes a violation of the law, but is, rather, whether he has violated the statute under which the indictments were drawn.
Appellant insists that, in no event, can he be guilty of a violation of this statute, for the reason that he drew and mailed the checks to the payees in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. State
...a crime consummated within its borders. State v. Scofield, supra. Cf. Mortensen v. State, 214 Ark. 528, 217 S.W.2d 325; Cousins v. State, 202 Ark. 500, 151 S.W.2d 658. The crime of rape of a female by a male by sexual intercourse is consummated by his having carnal knowledge of the female. ......
-
Torres v. State
...neither Kirwan nor Findley supports the State's position.Finally, in oral argument, the State contended that Cousins v. State , 202 Ark. 500, 151 S.W.2d 658 (1941), supports the jury's verdict. In Cousins , C.H. Cousins was alleged to have knowingly written checks from a Missouri bank accou......
-
Mortensen v. State
...the Garland Circuit Court, where the information was filed, was without jurisdiction in the offense. But the case of Cousins v. State, 202 Ark. 500, 151 S.W. 2d 658, 660, is to the contrary. There the defendant had been convicted of a violation of the over-draft statute, appearing as Sec. 7......
-
Mortensen v. State
...or other institutions outside of this state, which act was passed subsequent to the opinion in the Cousins case, supra. It was said in the Cousins case, "Now, it is to be that appellant was not prosecuted for and has not been convicted of obtaining money or other thing of value by false pre......