People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 17 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 72.,72. |
| Citation | 3 N.W.2d 23,301 Mich. 93 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MILLER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gordon Miller was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cass County; Glenn E. Warner, Judge.
Before the Entire Bench, except WIEST, J.
Charles W. Gore and Webster Sterling, both of Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Asa K. Hayden, Pros. Atty., of Cassopolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction and sentence for the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses from one Maurice Vandervelde.
We adopt the following from appellant's brief as a statement of facts:
‘The defendant was arrested on complaint of one Maurice Vandevelde. During the month of April, 1940, Vandevelde purchased a tavern in the Village of Sumnerville, Cass County, Michigan. Vandervelde was a resident of South Bend, Indiana. The tavern was purchased from one Tony Pridavka, who had been operating the tavern for some time before and who owned the real estate.
‘Pridavka's tavern license expired on the 1st day of May, 1940. At this time Vandevelde was advised that he could not obtain tavern license by reason of his nonresidence. At about this time and between the 1st and 13th days of May, 1940, Vandevelde and the defendant met at the tavern. The subject of discussion was Vandevelde's inability to obtain a license on account of the fact that he was not a resident of the State of Michigan.
‘The complaining witness testified that the defendant told him at this time that he could get a license for the place and advised the complaining witness not to say anything about it to anyone. The two then went over to the A & M Hotel at Dewey Lake, a few miles away, where the defendant lived. On the way back, the defendant told Vandevelde that he, the defendant, was going to open a tavern at Sister Lakes; that the defendant was not supposed to have a license, but that he was going to open up on account of the fact that he knew some people connected with the Liquor Commission; that one of the members was a very good friend of his and he mentioned Mr. Parrish. He also mentioned Mr. DeFoe and Mr. Ehrmann, then members of the Liquor Control Commission. Vandevelde said the defendant told him he was sort of a field man for these three members of the Commission and that ‘these three men took care of such things'; that when situations arose in the state where a man wanted to get a license, that he, the defendant, was the man that took care of it. The complaining witness also stated that the defendant told him if he could raise $300.00, he would give this money to the three men above described and that this money was to be split three ways, *$100.00 each to Parrish, Ehrmann, and DeFoe. The complaining witness claimed that the defendant told him that he could procure a license for $300.00 in the manner above recited.
‘Vandevelde claimed that he then borrowed $300.00 from his father and two days thereafter saw the defendant at his tavern. The wife of the complaining witness was in the place at the time. Vandevelde said that the parties talked about the $300.00, whereupon he states that he counted out $300.00 in fifteen $20.00 bills and in the presence of Mrs. Vandevelde handed the money to the defendant Miller. Vendevelde claims that a few days later, the defendant came back to the tavern with blanks for a tavern license in the name of Tony Pridavka, the former owner, stating that a license in the name of Pridavka would be just the same as if the complaining witness had the license. Vandevelde claims that he put up the money for the license, in Pridavka's name and that Pridavka signed the application and the bond, whereupon, through the office of Lewis James, an attorney in Dowagiac, Michigan, the license was applied for and obtained in the name of Pridavka. Vandervelde claims that he paid for the application and the license.
‘The complaining witness operated the tavern from May until July, 1940, when an investigation concerning the ownership of the place was made in July of 1940. Shortly thereafter the license was cancelled.
‘The complaining witness then states he informed the defendant, who reassured the complaining witness that nothing would ever come of it. Pridavka was then notified to appear before the Commission and the complaining witness told Miller, the defendant, about that. The defendant said that it would all be taken care of by his friends in Lansing, after which Mr. Pridavka went to Lansing with Mr. Miller in Miller's car. Pridavka attended the hearing. License was definitely cancelled after this hearing.
‘The complaining witness said that the defendant told him at the time he gave him the $300.00, that if anything went wrong, he would pay the $300.00 back. Vandevelde then demanded the $300.00 back and the defendant said that he could not give it back to him but that the defendant assured him he would take care of him.
‘During the time that the complaining witness was running the tavern in Pridavka's name, the liquor license was in Pridavka's name, the Federal license was in the name of Mrs. Vandervelde and the Michigan Sales Tax was paid under the name of ‘Tony's Tavern’. Mrs. Vandevelde was also a non-resident of the State of Michigan.
‘Messrs. Parrish, Ehrmann and DeFoe testified at the trial that they had never known the defendant Miller and that he did not offer them nor pay them each $100.00 or any other sum of money.
‘The defendant, Gordon Miller, testified in his own behalf and positively denied all of the material claims made by the complaining witness.
‘Bessie Vandevelde, wife of the complaining witness testified that she saw her husband pay the defendant $300.00 in cash.’
In the first count of the information, defendant was charged with obtaining the sum of $300 from the complaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vaughn
...judges of the facts and neither the trial court nor this court can interfere with their exercise of that right," People v. Miller, 301 Mich. 93, 100, 3 N.W.2d 23 (1942), where the proofs as presented indicate completed offenses, it is not a usurpation of the jury's function for the trial co......
-
People v. Harrison
...was not worthy of belief. It is axiomatic that the credibility of any witness is a matter for the trier of fact. People v. Miller, 301 Mich. 93, 3 N.W.2d 23 (1942); People v. McIntosh, 6 Mich.App. 62, 148 N.W.2d 220 (1967); People v. Floyd, 15 Mich.App. 284, 166 N.W.2d 506 (1968); People v.......
-
People v. Adams
...judges of the facts and neither the trial court nor this court can interfere with their exercise of that right.' People v. Miller, 301 Mich. 93, 100, 3 N.W.2d 23, 26 (1942). And in People v. Putnam, 323 Mich. 374, 379, 35 N.W.2d 279, 281 (1948), Justice Boyles stated, 'It is not the provinc......
-
People v. Wilde, Docket No. 12127
...in 'overcharging'. Such conflicting evidence creates a factual dispute whose resolution is exclusively a jury function. People v. Miller, 301 Mich. 93, 3 N.W.2d 23 (1942); People v. Hudson, 386 Mich. 665, 194 N.W.2d 329 (1972); People v. McIntosh, 6 Mish.App. 62, 148 N.W.2d 220 (1967). 4 We......