In re Cameron

Decision Date07 June 1890
Citation24 P. 90,44 Kan. 64
PartiesIn the matter of the Petition of HANNAH CAMERON for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
CourtKansas Supreme Court
Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus.

PETITION filed in this court on April 21, 1890. The material facts appear in the opinion, filed on June 7, 1890.

J. W Rose, for petitioner.

W. H Robb, county attorney, contra.

HORTON C. J. All the Justices concurring.



The petitioner, Hannah Cameron, alleges that she is illegally restrained of her liberty by the sheriff of Edwards county, under a warrant issued on the 27th day of March, 1890, by J. Kenneck, a justice of the peace of that county, charging her with having unlawfully, feloniously, and designedly, by false pretenses, obtained from George W. Crawford an organ of the value of $ 95.

It appears from the agreed statement of facts that Crawford had purchased, in November, 1888, an organ from Mrs. Cameron, who acted as agent; that he had made a cash payment upon the organ, and gave two promissory notes for the deferred payments. The notes were so executed that the payee was entitled to take possession of the organ at any time, if Crawford failed to pay as the notes matured, or if he undertook to remove the organ from the place where it was. It also appears that he paid upon the organ sums aggregating $ 66; that at the time Mrs. Cameron came for the organ, on January 8, 1890, there was due upon the last note between $ 35 and $ 40; that she stated to him "she was the agent of the Western Temple of Music, of which S. R. Huyett was the general manager; that the company had sent her to take the organ on account of the non-payment of the last note; that she would take the organ to her house, at Macksville, in this state, a few miles distant from where Crawford lived, and that he could have the organ at any time by making payment"; that Crawford relied upon these statements, and surrendered the possession of the organ to Mrs. Cameron. Soon afterward, Crawford went to Macksville to see Mrs. Cameron and make the last payment, but found the organ had been taken to Hutchinson, in this state. It further appears, however, that although Mrs. Cameron had been acting as agent for the Western Temple of Music for about two years, and had sold several organs for the company, that the one purchased by Crawford belonged to her daughter, Mrs. Ursula Searles; that she sold the organ to Crawford as the agent of Mrs. Searles; that after the last note was overdue, at the request of her daughter and as her agent she obtained possession of the organ from Crawford, who was then in default upon the last note for an amount exceeding $ 30. It also appears that Mrs. Cameron believed at the time she went to Crawford's for the organ, that he was about to remove with his family to Texas, and take the organ with him.

According to all the testimony, the conditions of the last note which Crawford had executed for the organ were not complied with. It is also conceded that the holder of the note, under its terms was entitled to the possession of the organ upon default of payment, or if the purchaser undertook to remove the organ from the place where it was. Upon the facts as disclosed by the testimony, Mrs. Cameron has not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Gumm v. Heider
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1960 which a man may be cheated into duty, is not within the statute.' People v. Thomas, 3 Hill, N.Y., 169. See, also, In re Cameron, 44 Kan. 64, 24 P. 90, 21 Am.St.Rep. 262; Rex v. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 354; Commonwealth v. McDuffy, 126 Mass. 467; Annotation, 20 A.L.R.2d 1266; Perkins on Cri......
  • Martins v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1908
    ...Cr. Law, Sec. 665; 19 Cyc. 393, 411; Morris v. People, 4 Colo.App. 136; Berry v. State, 97 Ga. 202; McGhee v. State, 97 Ga. 199; In re. Cameron, 44 Kan. 64; v. Asher, 50 Ark. 427; Morgan v. State, 42 Ark. 131; State v. Matthews, 44 Kan. 596; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297; Johnson v. State,......
  • State v. Chambers
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 19 Febrero 1917
    ...that defendant obtained the amount he made claim for. Therefore we are at some loss to understand the relevancy of In re Cameron, 44 Kan. 64, 24 Pac. 90, 21 Am. St. Rep. 262, that if defendant is entitled to the immediate possession of the property which he obtains by false pretense, he can......
  • State v. Davis
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1890
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT