People v. Cline
| Decision Date | 06 October 1880 |
| Citation | 44 Mich. 290,6 N.W. 671 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CLINE and another. |
Information in a prosecution for obtaining goods under false pretences held sufficient. The court cannot go outside of a bill of exceptions and ascertain facts upon testimony not made part of the bill. Where evidence in the bill failed to show that one of the defendants was guilty of the offence of which convicted, held, it would be presumed other and necessary evidence was given. Certain expert testimony as to the signatures to the assignment of the mortgage and indorsement of a note, standing alone, regarded as immaterial. Proof that the mortgagor purporting to have signed the mortgage in question did not sign the same, held, insufficient. The prosecuting attorney in this case being directly interested in the result was disqualified from conducting the prosecution.
Error to Huron.
Richard Winsor, Prosecuting Att'y, for the People.
We are of opinion that the information filed in this case was not fatally defective, within the ruling of Enders v. The People, 20 Mich. 240. In this case the false pretences are fully set forth, and the information shows an assignment of the mortgage direct to the parties injured, and alleges that by means of said false pretences Cline and Ellis obtained from Winsor and Carrington, in exchange for said paper writings, the goods, etc. The information in other respects contains the usual formal allegations. It is thus we think, sufficiently alleged, and appears from the allegations, that the false representations were made to induce Winsor and Carrington to purchase the mortgage referred to, and that in reliance upon the statements and representations made they did purchase the same and parted with their property thereafter. It is, we think, clear that they relied upon the statements and representations made, and parted with their property upon the strength thereof and of the assignment, or what purported to be, to them, of the mortgage.
It is also urged that there was no evidence in the case tending to show that any of the representations alleged were made by defendant Ellis, and that he was therefore entitled to an acquittal. If it appeared by the bill of exceptions that all the evidence tending to show Ellis' connection with the matter was set forth therein, the view taken would be correct.
We cannot go outside of the bill of exceptions and examine the printed testimony in order to ascertain what the facts were as the evidence is not made a part of the bill. It does not appear that Ellis was present at the time the false representations were made, and the trade consummated, or that he had any knowledge thereof, or that such was the design or intention of respondents in preparing these papers, if they did, if that would be sufficient. The fact that he was present afterwards, when Cline received a part of the consideration and that Cline gave Ellis a part thereof, would not be sufficient, even if Ellis then had full knowledge of the representations made by Cline, which does not appear. The evidence set forth in the bill of exceptions clearly tends to show, at least in some parts, whether complete or not we need not now determine, that an offence was jointly committed by these respondents, but not the one alleged and for which they were tried.
We must therefore assume that other and necessary evidence was given to connect Ellis with the representations made. If there were not, he would be entitled to his discharge.
Charles Flowers, an expert in handwriting, was examined. He compared the signatures to the assignment and the indorsement on the note with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial