State v. Ainsworth
Decision Date | 06 November 1937 |
Docket Number | 33541. |
Citation | 146 Kan. 665,72 P.2d 962 |
Parties | STATE v. AINSWORTH. |
Court | Kansas 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.
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:
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-
State v. Otto
...(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.
... ... 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
...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 ......