Karr v. State, 4868

Decision Date29 April 1957
Docket NumberNo. 4868,4868
Citation301 S.W.2d 442,227 Ark. 777
PartiesRoland KARR, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Claude F. Cooper, Blytheville, for appellant.

Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., Ben J. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLWEE, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of false pretense under Ark.Stats. § 41-1901 by falsely and fraudulent obtaining the signatures of two cosigners on his promissory note for $3,000. His punishment was fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

The principal contention for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Appellant resided in Blytheville, Arkansas, in 1952 when he procured a franchise as a salesman or distributor of farm machinery and equipment for the Winpower Manufacturing Company of Newton, Iowa, upon a commission basis. He maintained his office in his residence and solicited orders from retail dealers in parts of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana. The company sold forage boxes or beds which were supplied by another manufacturer under Winpower's brand name. In January or February, 1954, the company notified appellant and its other distributors that it had discontinued the sale of forage boxes.

W. L. Walker operates an insurance agency in Blytheville and J. F. Scrape is a farmer living near there. Walker had known appellant about five years in the early part of 1955 when the three men became friends in connection with a Dale Carnegie course which they took. Walker and Scrape testified that in July, 1955, appellant solicited their assistance in a business deal upon which he stood to make a generous profit; that he represented to them that he had orders for eight forage boxes from retail dealers in Mississippi and Louisiana which had already been placed with the Winpower Manufacturing Company; and that the sum of $2,891.28 was necessary to effect the release of the equipment and the balance of a $3,000 loan was needed for traveling expenses to insure proper delivery. Acting on these representations, Walker and Scrape became cosigners on appellant's note to the First National Bank of Blytheville for $3,000 on July 23, 1955, payable in 90 days. When appellant defaulted Walker and Scrape paid the note and secured a judgment against him which remains unsatisfied. When Scrape and Walker talked to appellant after the note became due he declined to identify the dealers from whom he claimed to have orders for eight forage boxes.

F. K. Bauer, Secretary of Winpower Manufacturing Co., testified of notices to appellant in 1954 that the company had discontinued the sale of forage boxes; that the company had no orders for such equipment from appellant in July 1955; and that the last shipment of any kind to appellant's account was made on May 10, 1955.

In his testimony appellant admitted representing to Walker and Scrape that he had orders for eight forage boxes from dealers in Mississippi and Louisiana and that $2,891.28 was required to complete said orders but denied representing that the orders had been placed with the Winpower Company. Instead he stated he had orders from four dealers for eight boxes which were placed with another company and so informed Walker and Scrape; and that three of the dealers cancelled their orders for two boxes each before delivery. Shortly after procuring the loan appellant transferred the proceeds to a Memphis bank. He introduced an invoice and check for $723.32 to another company in support of his statement that he sold and delivered two forage boxes to a dealer in Mississippi shortly after July 23, 1955. He spent the balance of the $3,000 on personal bills. Although he stated that he had documentary proof of the other three orders and cancellations, none was produced.

The false pretense which constitutes an offense...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 14 December 1970
    ...by which a party may alert the jury for critical points to be expected to be covered in the testimony to be adduced. See Karr v. State, 227 Ark. 777, 301 S.W.2d 442. By the same token, it seems unnecessary to elaborate upon the detriment suffered by a party deprived of his right to make suc......
  • Barnes v State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 27 September 2001
    ...statement of the evidence on which the state relies,' Ark. Stat. Ann. 43-2110 (Repl. 1964), and the issues to be tried. Karr v. State, 227 Ark. 777, 301 S.W.2d 442 (1957). No asserted fact should be stated by the prosecutor unless it is material evidence on the part of the state. Smith v. S......
  • Edens v. State, 5026
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 28 May 1962
    ...of our more recent cases, involving this false pretense statute, are Anderson v. State, 226 Ark. 498, 290 S.W.2d 846; Karr v. State, 227 Ark. 777, 301 S.W.2d 442; and Kerby v. State, 233 Ark. 8, 342 S.W.2d 412. In accordance with the rules of these and other case, we conclude that the evide......
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 28 May 1974
    ...statement of the evidence on which the State relies,' Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--2110 (Repl.1964), and the issues to be tried. Karr v. State, 227 Ark. 777, 301 S.W.2d 442 (1957). No asserted fact should be stated by the prosecutor unless it is material evidence on the part of the state. Smith v. S......
  • 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