Sanford, Alias Molton v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 05 February 1926 |
| Citation | 212 Ky. 758 |
| Parties | Caleb Sanford, alias Fred Molton v. Commonweath. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. False Pretenses — Indictment Sufficient if Charging Reliance on Truth of Statements and Inducement to Part with His Property. — Indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses is sufficient in view of Criminal Code of Practice, sections 122, 136, and 137, if it charges, either in terms or in substance, that person defrauded relied upon truth of the false statements and was induced thereby to part with his money or property.
2. False Pretenses — Indictment Held Not Subject to Objection that it Failed to Allege that Complainant Relied Upon Alleged False Representations of Accused. — Indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses held not subject to objection that it failed to allege that complainant relied upon alleged false representations of the accused, and would not have parted with his money but for such representations, where, after setting out the representations made and their falsity, it alleged that complainant "thereby believing said false pretenses, . . . did then and there give said defendant his personal check," and that defendant cashed check and received money thereon.
3. Criminal Law — Testimony as to How Complainant Procured Money Defendant Obtained from Him Held Not Prejudicial, though Incompetent. — In prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, testimony of complainant stating how he procured money defendant obtained from him, though incompetent because immaterial, was not prejudicial.
4. Criminal Law — Testimony, though Incompetent, Held Not Prejudicial, where Same Facts Established by Circumstances Proven Without Objection. — In prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, testimony of cashier as to falsity of representations made by defendant, though hearsay and incompetent, held not prejudicial, where their falsity was established by circumstances proven without objection or denial.
5. Criminal Law — Article Appearing in Paper Held Properly Excluded. — In prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, article appearing in paper conducted by student body of school with which complainant was connected as trustee and financial agent, in part contradicting his evidence, offered by defendant upon cross-examination of complainant, held properly excluded.
6. False Pretenses — Motion for Directed Acquittal Held Properly Overruled, where Falsity of Representations was Established by Circumstantial Evidence. — Motion for directed acquittal, in prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, on ground that there was no proof that alleged representations were false, held properly overruled, where their falsity was established by circumstantial evidence.
7. Criminal Law — Objection to Statement of Prosecuting Attorney Not Considered, where Statement Does Not Appear in Bill of Exceptions or Otherwise than in Motion and Grounds for New Trial. — Objection to statement of prosecuting attorney in closing argument will not be considered on appeal, where alleged improper argument does not appear in bill of exceptions or otherwise than in motion and grounds for new trial.
Appeal from Carter Circuit Court.
AUSTIN FIELDS for appellant.
FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and CHAS F. CREAL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Affirming.
Appellant was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses and sentenced to four years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The first complaint is that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment. The only criticism of the indictment is that it fails to allege that the complainant, R.B. Neal, relied upon the alleged false representations of the accused and would not have parted with his money but for such representations.
It is true that the indictment nowhere contains this precise language, and it is also true that this court in Bryant v. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 593, 47 S.W. 578, said that such an indictment was fatally defective "in failing to clearly and specifically allege that the party who parted with his goods or gave the credit relied upon the representation and but for said statements would not have extended credit or parted with his goods, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial