People v. Wakely
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | CHAMPLIN |
| Citation | 28 N.W. 871,62 Mich. 297 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WAKELY. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1886 |
PEOPLE
v.
WAKELY.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 1, 1886.
Exceptions from Ionia.
The Attorney General, for the People.
George H. Cagwin and Mitchel & McGarry, for defendant.
CHAMPLIN, J.
The defendant was informed against and convicted of obtaining personal property by false pretenses.
Objections are taken to the sufficiency of the information. We are of opinion that the information is sufficient, under our statutes relative to pleadings in such cases. How.St. §§ 9226, 9539. It was incumbent upon
[28 N.W. 872]
the prosecution to prove, not only the representations and pretenses made, but their falsity, substantially as alleged in the information. These were as follows:
“That on the fourth day of August, 1884, at the city of Ionia, in the county of Ionia, with intent to cheat and defraud one Margaret J. Schild, and fraudulently obtain one single-top buggy with improved Brewster spring, of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, of the goods and chattels and property of her, the said Margaret J. Schild, did designedly falsely represent and pretend to one John Schild, who was the agent of the said Margaret Schild, and had the authority from her to sell and dispose of said buggy, that he, the said Hudson J. Wakely, owned in fee-simple, clear and free from all liens or incumbrance, one hundred and twenty acres of good farming land in Montcalm county, Michigan, worth six thousand dollars; and said Hudson J. Wakely well knew at the time he made said representations that said John Schild was the agent for said Margaret J. Schild, as herein stated.
“And also that said Hudson J. Wakely, at the same time and place, with intent to cheat and defraud said Margaret J. Schild, and fraudulently obtain said top-buggy from her, did further designed falsely represent and pretend to the said John Schild, as agent for said Margaret J. Schild, and with intent to obtain said buggy as aforesaid, that his brother, that is to say, the brother of said Hudson J. Wakely, to-wit, one John Q. Wakely, owned one hundred and sixty acres of good farming land near Carson City, Michigan, and that his brother was worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars, free and clear of all liens and incumbrances.
“And the said John Schild, believing the said false pretenses and representations so made as aforesaid, was then and there deceived thereby, and was induced, by means of the false pretenses and representations so made as aforesaid, to deliver, and did then and there, heretofore, to-wit, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 991
...153 P. 684; Kraft v. State, 217 S.W. 1038; Bonnell v. State, 64 Ind. 498; Martins v. State, 17 Wyo. 319; 98 P. 709; People v. Weakley, 62 Mich. 297; 28 N.W. 871.) The defrauding of complaining witness is the gravamen of the offense. The word "obtained" is not sufficient by itself to allege ......
-
State v. O'Neil
...supra; Lobosco v. United States, 183 F. 742, 106 C. C. A. 476; Sapir v. United States, 174 F. 219, 98 C. C. A. 227; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871; State v. Stamper, 159 Mo.App. 382, 141 S.W. 432; People v. Robertson, 6 Cal.App. 514, 92 P. 498; Anderson v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 1......
-
State v. Stratford, 6105
...transactions before the one charged are admissible to prove intent. People v. Henssler, 48 Mich. 49, 11 N.W. 804; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871; People v. Summers, 115 Mich. 537, 73 N.W. 818. Does this exception also permit the introduction of evidence of subsequent similar ac......
-
People v. Fleming, No. 146.
...Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 N. W. 546,18 Ann. Cas. 844;People v. MacGregor, 178 Mich. 468, 144 N. W. 869;People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 303, 28 N. W. 871; Rapalje on Larceny, etc., § 200; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 346; Weyman v. People, 6 Thomp. & C. 696. In the last case cited the defendant wa......
-
State v. O'Neil
...supra; Lobosco v. United States, 183 F. 742, 106 C. C. A. 476; Sapir v. United States, 174 F. 219, 98 C. C. A. 227; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871; State v. Stamper, 159 Mo.App. 382, 141 S.W. 432; People v. Robertson, 6 Cal.App. 514, 92 P. 498; Anderson v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 1......
-
People v. Fleming, 146.
...Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 N. W. 546,18 Ann. Cas. 844;People v. MacGregor, 178 Mich. 468, 144 N. W. 869;People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 303, 28 N. W. 871; Rapalje on Larceny, etc., § 200; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 346; Weyman v. People, 6 Thomp. & C. 696. In the last case cited the defendant wa......
-
People v. McCoy, Docket No. 28552
...See also, People v. Larco, 331 Mich. 420, 49 N.W.2d 358 (1951); People v. Segal, 180 Mich. 316, 146 N.W. 644 (1914); People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871 (1886); People v. Cheff, 37 Mich.App. 1, 194 N.W.2d 401 (1971), and People v. Sharpe, 22 Mich.App. 454, 178 N.W.2d 90 Clearly, "in......
-
State v. Adams
...representations actually made to be false and that he intended to defraud. (Sharp v. State, 53 N.J.L. 511, 21 A. 1026; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871; 6 Lawson's Criminal Defenses, pp. 1033-1035; citing Bracey v. State, 64 Miss. 26, 8 So. 165.) The representation must not be ob......