People v. Lennox

• Decision Date: 01 October 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 488,106 Mich. 625
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LENNOX.

64 N.W. 488

106 Mich. 625

PEOPLE v. LENNOX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 1, 1895

Exceptions from circuit court, Ingham county; Rollin H. Person, Judge.

Cornelius Lennox was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses and excepts. Affirmed.

L. B. Gardner, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Arthur D. Prosser, for defendant.

GRANT J.

The gist of the crime charged in the information is that the respondent "did designedly falsely represent and pretend to said Robert B. Shank that he, the said Cornelius Lennox had received from one Walter A. Newton a subscription of $10 with payment in full thereon by said Walter A. Newton," whereas the said Walter A. Newton had not subscribed nor paid him the $10, and had subscribed and paid to him only $1. The allegations in regard to the subscription book or paper, and that said Shank had written his name and amount therein, are merely descriptive of the means used, and of evidence to sustain the charge. The information would be perfectly good if it contained nothing about the subscription book or paper. "The defendant's knowledge of the falsity of the pretenses is material, and hence must be averred, unless the pretenses stated are of such a nature as to exclude the possible hypothesis of the defendant's ignorance of their falsity." People v. Fitzgerald, 92 Mich. 331 52 N.W. 726, and the authorities there cited. That case was reversed because the information did not allege that the respondent knew he was not authorized by the association to collect the money for the benefit of the person named in the subscription paper. It was held that the respondent might have been ignorant of the fact that the paper he presented was a false and fraudulent statement. The present case comes clearly within the exception to the general rule stated in the above authority. The allegation of the information in this case negatives any possible hypothesis of ignorance. In People v. Behee, 90 Mich. 356, 51 N.W. 515, the information was held bad because it did not allege that Barbour was the agent of the Detroit Stove Works, from whom it was charged that the money was fraudulently obtained, and because it did not allege that the respondent knew the representations to be false. These representations were that he was authorized to collect money for a poor woman whose son was killed on the railway, and who was her only support. He might honestly have believed that he was authorized....