State v. Ainsworth

Decision Date06 November 1937
Docket Number33541.
Citation146 Kan. 665,72 P.2d 962
PartiesSTATE v. AINSWORTH.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

Under statute making attempt to commit a crime an offense information charging accused with crime of attempting to cheat and defraud hotel company by trick and deception and by false and fraudulent representations, statements, and pretenses, in words of statute setting out such offense charged an offense within meaning of statutes (Gen.St.1935 21-101, 21-551).

An information charging the defendant with the crime of attempting to cheat and defraud a certain hotel company by trick and deception and by false and fraudulent representations, statements, and pretenses, examined, and held that the information sufficiently charged a crime under our statute G.S.1935, 21-101.

Appeal from District Court, Shawnee County; Division No. 1; George A. Kline, Judge.

R. G Ainsworth was convicted of attempting to cheat and defraud hotel company by trick and deception, and fraudulent representation, statement, and pretense, and he appeals.

Dennis Madden, of Topeka, for appellant.

Clarence V. Beck, Atty. Gen., and Paul L. Harvey, Co. Atty., of Topeka, for the State.

ALLEN Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court under which the defendant was sentenced to serve one year in the county jail.

The charging part of the information is as follows:

"That R. C. Ainsworth at the County of Shawnee in the State of Kansas and within the jurisdiction of this court on the -- day of December, A.D.1936, did unlawfully, feloniously and willfully and with intent to cheat and defraud The Hotel Kansan Operating Company, a corporation, organized and existing and operating under the laws of the State of Kansas, designedly by means of a trick and deception, and false and fraudulent representation, statement and pretense, attempt to obtain from the said, The Kansan Operating Company, a corporation, $185.00 lawful money of the United States of America, said trick and deception and false and fraudulent representation and pretense being as follows:
"Said R. C. Ainsworth, at the time and place above stated did call by telephone the agent of the said The Hotel Kansan Operating Company, a corporation and represented to the said agent that there was enroute to the said Hotel Kansan, a party of four persons from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, by airplane, when in truth and in fact there was no such party. Said defendant at said time and place did go to the said Hotel and sign the following names, occupations and residences on the register of said Hotel: C. C. Kearns, chief pilot, Edmonton Alberta; R. H. Leesbond and wife, Edmonton, Alberta; J. C. Reamey and wife, Edmonton, Alberta, and did represent to said agent at said hotel that the persons above named would be in the hotel in a short time, when in truth and in fact there were no such persons and the said defendant did at the time and place first above mentioned, request the agent of said hotel to cash for him checks in the amount of $185.00, which checks were spurious and of no value and which said agent refused to cash. Contrary to the Statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Kansas."

On April 14, 1937, a motion to quash the information on the ground that the information did not charge a public offense was overruled. The record shows that on April 15, 1937, the defendant appeared in person and by his attorneys, waived arraignment, and entered his voluntary plea of guilty. On April 17, 1937, it was ordered and adjudged that the defendant be sentenced to the county jail.

It is urged that the information does not charge a crime and that the judgment and sentence is void.

In charging the attempt to commit the offense, the information follows the language of the statute, G.S.1935, 21-551,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Otto
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1981
    ...(1954); People v. Gallardo, 41 Cal.2d 57, 257 P.2d 29 (1953); State v. Schirmer, 70 Idaho 83, 211 P.2d 762 (1949); 3 State v. Ainsworth, 146 Kan. 665, 72 P.2d 962 (1937). The general rule in regard to solicitations within the context of the preparatory-perpetratory acts sufficient for an at......
  • Fitzhugh v. Central Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1937
    ... ... and that court made illegal nunc pro tunc order on day of ... sheriff's sale, but which did not state that plaintiff ... had legal defense to indebtedness upon which judgment in rem ... was rendered, did not state facts sufficient to constitute a ... ...
  • State v. Bereman, 39549
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1954
    ...176. See, also, In re Lloyd, petitioner, 51 Kan. 501, 502, 33 P. 307; State v. Frazier, supra; State v. Custer, supra; State v. Ainsworth, 146 Kan. 665, 72 P.2d 962. No useful purpose would be gained by narrating the evidence offered by the state in the instant case. Suffice to say that we ......

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