Crum v. State

• Decision Date: 05 October 1897
• Citation: 148 Ind. 401,47 N.E. 833
• Parties: CRUM et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

148 Ind. 401

47 N.E. 833

CRUM et al.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 5, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; L. J. Kirkpatrick, Judge.

John W. Crum and John C. Evans were convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and appeal. Affirmed.

H. J. Paulus and Austin De Wolf, for appellants. Elias Bundy, Pros. Atty., and W. A. Ketcham, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HOWARD, J.

The appellants, John W. Crum and John C. Evans, were convicted of grand larceny, and ask for a reversal of the judgment against them, claiming, first, that the evidence was insufficient. The evidence was chiefly that of the prosecuting witness, which was corroborated by that of other witnesses. It appears that Evans was president of a bank in Jonesboro, and Crum was an insurance agent in Marion. The prosecuting witness was a farmer named Haines, living near Marion, and was related by marriage to Evans. On August 22, 1896, Evans and his wife called to pay a visit to Haines, who lived with his mother. Evans and his wife stayed all night. During the evening Mrs. Evans spoke quite freely of how well her husband had got along, that he was making money rapidly, and said that farming was a pretty slow business, and, if one wished to make money fast, he must do something else. The evidence of Haines, the prosecuting witness, then continues: “After the women folks had retired for the night, Evans hitched over his chair nearer mine, and began to talk on the money question, said that he had a scheme on foot by which, if he had the money, he could go to New York City, and get a large amount of good money. * * * Said that he could get five for one, and that it was good money, that would pass anywhere. * * * Told about a friend he had there that made this offer to him; that his friend in New York ‘was connected with the Continental Insurance Company’; that the insurance company ‘had a man here at Marion that would give the numbers that would pass him through that bank.’ The money ‘would come through the Continental Insurance Company Bank, in the back room, New York City.”’ Evans wanted $1,000 of the witness. This was on Saturday, and it was agreed that on the succeeding Saturday the witness was to meet Evans in Marion, to continue the negotiations. Accordingly, Haines went to Marion, as agreed. Did not at first meet with Evans, and went to Crum's office on some insurance business. He did not say anything to Crum about the proposed deal with Evans, as he did not then know that Crum was the man that Evans had referred to as the one through whose aid the money could be procured in New York, although he did know that Crum was the local agent for the Continental Insurance Company. Incidentally, however, he asked Crum if he knew where the witness “could get two for one,” which Crum replied, “Yes, five for one.” He also asked Crum if he had seen Evans, to which Crum answered, “No;” to wait, that Evans would be in directly. Towards evening, and some time after leaving Crum, witness met Evans, and they started together for a retired place, out of town, called “McClure's Woods.” On the way, Crum fell in with them. After reaching the woods, they began again on the money question. Evans showed witness good money, and gave him a five-dollar bill to take and try it. He spoke again of “the wonderful money in the East that he could get”; “that the Continental Insurance Bank had the money there to let at five for one.” He said it would pass anywhere. Crum read a letter purporting to be from the Continental Insurance Company. The letter said that the money was there; that Crum had made a large amount of money for the company; and that “they wanted him to be wise.” “‘Come, friend Crum, and be wise,’ is what it said.” The witness agreed to try to raise the money requested of him, and they separated, returning by different roads to the town. A few days after, Crum and Evans came to him at the farm, to see if he had the money; and he told them he yet lacked something over $200. They urged him to hurry the matter; that “we had to make the deal right away if we made it at all.” The next day witness went to Marion, and met Evans, telling him he had the money, $1,000, in checks and certificates of deposit. Evans, however, told him to go to the bank, and get the cash, which he did; and they repaired at once to McClure's woods, where they found Crum, and the money was counted out and given to Evans. They first suggested that witness go to New York, and get the counterfeit money; and, on his refusing, Evans said he would take the first train, and go himself. Crum said there would be no trouble in getting the money; “that he would give the numbers that would pass Evans through.” Crum wrote a check on Evans' bank for $10,000, as his share in the enterprise. Evans looked at the check, and pronounced it good, saying that Crum had deposited that much money a few days before. Evans then said he would need more money, and he wrote a note for $4,000, which witness signed. Evans said he would indorse it, and draw the money on it, and would see that the note was paid out of the money they should receive from New York. When Crum offered his $10,000 check, Evans at first objected, saying there were but two in the deal, himself and witness; but Crum insisted that he must be a partner, and Evans yielded. Evans and witness together were to get $50,000, or $25,000 apiece. The bogus money was to be shipped by Evans to witness by express, and it was agreed that he should not open the package until they were all together. On the day appointed, witness went to the express office, and was told by the agent that there was a money package for him. He took the package home, and put it in his trunk until next day, when he took it out, and carried it in a sack to an old house, and there carefully buried it in a pile of oats which he had upstairs. That evening Evans and Crum came along, and inquired if he had received the package, and then told him to bring it to a piece of woods about half a mile away. Crum cut the cords, and unwrapped the package, and then asked Evans if the box looked as it did when he nailed it up. Evans said the nails were larger in one of the lids than when he nailed it up. The lid was then pried off, and nothing but bunches of paper were found in the box. Evans then said it was not the way he had left it; that he had counted the money, placed it in the box, and then nailed it up. He said, if they told about this, they “would all go to the penitentiary.” He then flew into a passion, claimed that he had been robbed, that Crum and witness had robbed him, and that he would kill them both. With that he drew a revolver, and pointed it at witness; but Crum interfered, and kept him from shooting. Crum grabbed Evans, and they had a terrible scuffle, during which witness, in great fright, “took to his heels, and ran through the woods.” After that Crum called to witness to come back; that he had secured Evans' revolver, holding it up, so that witness could see it. Witness went back, and found that Evans had gone. Crum said he had struck him, and Evans had then run off. He said he would find out whether Evans ever sent the money; that he had been robbed of $10,000; and that witness had not done it. He said also that witness had best not say anything about the matter, as they were all liable to be sent to state's prison for 22 to 23 years. Crum then picked up the box and all the paper and wrappings, and took them to his buggy, and drove off, while witness went home. Other evidence goes to show Crum's full participation in the scheme, and that both appellants conspired to deprive Haines of his money, without any purpose on their part of even giving him the counterfeit money they pretended to be able to get. It was all a detailed contrivance to play on the cupidity and simplicity of Haines, and thus obtain his money, and at once appropriate it to their own use.

Counsel endeavor to argue that the crime committed was that of obtaining money under false pretenses, and not larceny. The facts, however, show that Haines parted with the possession only, and not with the title to his money. It was to be returned to him in 30 days at the furthest, or five to one should be given him for it in the New York money. They did neither. Larceny may be committed not only by taking property from another without his knowledge, but also by a trick, by means of which the owner's property is taken by some false token or other deception. If there is a present purpose to obtain possession of the property of another by such deception, and to at once appropriate the property to the use of the wrongdoer, there is larceny. Indeed, in such a case there is in reality a taking without the knowledge of the owner; for, by means of the trick or deception practiced, his knowledge is clouded, so that he loses possession of his property without realizing that it has been taken. But in such a case the title remains with him, so that the crime is larceny, and not obtaining property under false pretenses. In the latter case, both the possession and the title go to the wrongdoer. The owner freely parts with both, either for some worthless consideration, or because in some way he is persuaded to do so by false representations. Had appellants, in this case, carried out their agreement, and procured the counterfeit money by investing Haines' money in New York, it might be that he would thus have parted with the title, and the offense would have been that of obtaining money under false pretenses. But, as it was, appellants had no intention to do as they agreed, but at once appropriated the money to their own use. This was larceny.

It has frequently been held that larceny may be committed by wrongfully obtaining possession of property by trick, as well as by securing it by stealth. See Fleming v. State, 136 Ind. 149, 36 N. E. 154;March v. State, 117 Ind. 547, 20 N. E. 444;Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 533; and...