People v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 17 October 1876
• Citation: 35 Mich. 36
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The People v. Marion Jacobs

35 Mich. 36

The People v. Marion Jacobs

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 17, 1876

Heard October 3, 1876; October 4, 1876

Exceptions from St. Joseph Circuit.

Conviction set aside.

Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People.

J. W Flanders and H. H. Riley, for respondent.

OPINION

Graves, J.

Jacobs was convicted on a charge of having obtained money of one Barts by false pretenses, and the case comes here on exceptions before judgment.

Many exceptions seem to have been taken, but much the larger portion are properly abandoned. There are some others it would be desirable to consider if the record was in better shape. Jacobs called on Barts to borrow five hundred dollars and proposed to secure him by mortgage on land owned by his wife, Mrs. Jacobs. After some talk the loan was made, but Barts retained ten dollars, by understanding, to pay his expenses in going subsequently to view the land. Mrs. Jacobs gave her mortgage, together with her note, to Barts for the money. In this negotiation, as charged in the information, Jacobs made the false representations concerning the land mortgaged. It alleges that he falsely and feloniously pretended to Barts that Mrs. Jacobs was owner of lots thirty-six, thirty-eight, forty, and forty-two, in block three, in Harriet M. Clement's subdivision of the south one-third of fifteen acres lying in a square form in the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of section twelve, in town six south, of range twelve west, according to the recorded plat; that the lots were situated within the city limits of the city of Grand Rapids; were on the street running directly from the business part of the city to the fair grounds near the city limits; were between such fair grounds and the business portion of the city; that the lots were nicely located; were quarter-acre lots and constituting one square acre; that they would sell at any time at from twelve hundred dollars to fifteen hundred dollars cash; were worth much more than that, and were entirely free from all incumbrance. These pretenses are afterwards alleged to have been severally false. On the opening of the trial it was objected that the information set up no offense. The ground of the objection was not explained. But at a later stage of the trial the reason for the objection was stated to be, that the information did not state in words that Barts relied on the representations. The objection is not much insisted on, and is not tenable.

The allegations in this particular are formally sufficient. It was not essential to charge in express terms that Barts gave credit to the false pretenses. That he did so was a necessary implication from the allegation that he was induced...