Small v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 23,844 |
| Citation | 130 N.E. 401,190 Ind. 406 |
| Parties | Small v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Marion Criminal Court (50,916); Frank S. Roby, Special Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Charles Small. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Woolen Cox & Welliver and T. Ernest Maholm, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, for the state.
OPINION
Appellant was charged by indictment, under § 2588 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p. 431, with the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses. The indictment alleged, in substance, that at etc., on, etc., the appellant unlawfully, falsely, feloniously and knowingly pretended to "Charles L. Riddle and C. E. Dunham (whose Christian name is to the grand jurors unknown)," with intent by such false pretense to cheat and defraud them, and for the purpose of obtaining from them $ 200, that he (the appellant) was the absolute and sole owner of a certain formula for the manufacture of a varnish protector, and could and would sell and convey to them the complete and unincumbered right and title to and in said formula for a price named, but charged that he was not the absolute or sole owner of said formula, and had no interest in nor title to it, and could not sell, transfer, or convey it, as he well knew, and that said parties, relying upon said representations and believing them to be true, by reason of such reliance and belief paid to appellant and he received $ 200 of the property of said parties. The indictment is modeled closely upon the form set out in Ewbank, Criminal Law § 1163, and its sufficiency is not questioned in this appeal.
Appellant was tried without a jury, and was found guilty, as charged. He moved for a new trial for the alleged reasons that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to law. His motion was overruled and he excepted, and from a judgment on the finding this appeal was taken. The only error assigned is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. Counsel for the state suggest some objections to the notice of appeal, and to the manner of approval of the bill of exceptions. But in view of the conclusion reached upon the merits we do not deem it necessary to consider or decide whether or not the objections are well taken.
Under the rule which obtains in this court, in passing on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of guilty, we must disregard all evidence favorable to the appellant, and take into consideration only the evidence which tends to prove his guilt, with the inferences which the trial court might reasonably have drawn therefrom unfavorable to him. As so considered, there was ample evidence to sustain the charge that appellant (a) made the alleged statements (b) to Charles L. Riddle and C. E. Dunham; (c) that the statements were false and (d) appellant knew it, and (e) knowingly made them with intent to defraud said Riddle and Dunham; and (f) that Riddle and Dunham believed them, and (g) in that belief and in reliance thereon paid appellant $ 200 toward the purchase of the formula, and (h) that upon being confronted with the fact that another person owned the formula, appellant immediately left Indianapolis, and asked that mail be sent to him under the name of "Charles Short"; and (i) that he had previously sold the formula to two different persons in different cities, one of whom paid $ 3,000 for it at Buffalo, New York, of which appellant received $ 2,500 in cash; and (j) that immediately on receiving that money he left Buffalo, leaving his "clothes and baggage and everything else" behind.
At the trial C. E. Dunham testified that his name was "Charles Edward Dunham." But it was not shown where he lived, nor that he testified before the grand...
To continue reading
Request your trial