Small v. State, No. 23844.

Docket NºNo. 23844.
Citation130 N.E. 401, 190 Ind. 406
Case DateApril 08, 1921
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

190 Ind. 406
130 N.E. 401

SMALL
v.
STATE.

No. 23844.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 8, 1921.


Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Frank S. Roby, Judge.

Charles Small was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and his motion for new trial overruled, and he appeals. Affirmed.


Woolen, Cox & Welliver and T. Ernest Maholm, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh and A. G. Cavins, both of Indianapolis, for the State.


EWBANK, J.

Appellant was charged by indictment, under Burns' 1914, § 2588 (Acts 1907, c. 228, 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's 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.

[1][2] Under the rule which obtains in this court, in passing on the sufficiency of the evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Harito v. State, No. 24272.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 12, 1923
    ...to the appellant will be entirely disregarded if there is evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of guilty. Small v. State (1921) 190 Ind. 406, 130 N. E. 401. Under an error assigned that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, only that evidence which is favorable to the f......
  • Cazak v. State , No. 24463.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 31, 1925
    ...favorable to the prevailing party. Lee v. State, 190 Ind. 531, 131 N. E. 3;Howard v. State, 191 Ind. 232, 131 N. E. 403;Small v. State, 190 Ind. 406, 130 N. E. 401. There was some evidence tending to prove every material allegation of the affidavit, and the evidence was therefore sufficient......
  • Clodfelder v. State, No. 25033.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 20, 1926
    ...facts found by the verdict, standing alone and undisputed, sustains the inference of defendant's guilt drawn by the jury. Small v. State, 190 Ind. 406, 408, 130 N. E. 401;Tutsbree v. State, 195 Ind. 581, 583, 145 N. E. 490;Wolfa v. State (Ind. Sup.) 150 N. E. 98. [3] There was evidence that......
3 cases
  • Harito v. State, No. 24272.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 12, 1923
    ...to the appellant will be entirely disregarded if there is evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of guilty. Small v. State (1921) 190 Ind. 406, 130 N. E. 401. Under an error assigned that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, only that evidence which is favorable to the f......
  • Cazak v. State , No. 24463.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 31, 1925
    ...favorable to the prevailing party. Lee v. State, 190 Ind. 531, 131 N. E. 3;Howard v. State, 191 Ind. 232, 131 N. E. 403;Small v. State, 190 Ind. 406, 130 N. E. 401. There was some evidence tending to prove every material allegation of the affidavit, and the evidence was therefore sufficient......
  • Clodfelder v. State, No. 25033.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 20, 1926
    ...facts found by the verdict, standing alone and undisputed, sustains the inference of defendant's guilt drawn by the jury. Small v. State, 190 Ind. 406, 408, 130 N. E. 401;Tutsbree v. State, 195 Ind. 581, 583, 145 N. E. 490;Wolfa v. State (Ind. Sup.) 150 N. E. 98. [3] There was evidence that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT