State v. Ash
| Decision Date | 07 June 1890 |
| Citation | 44 Kan. 84,24 P. 72 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. FRED M. ASHE |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Atchison District Court.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
L. B Kellogg, attorney general, T. M. Pierce, county attorney, F W. Raymond, and W. D. Webb, for The State.
The state appeals in this case from the ruling of the Atchison county district court, at the September term, 1889, in sustaining an objection to the introduction of any evidence because the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.
The defendant was prosecuted for obtaining money from J. F. Class under false pretenses. The information charged that the defendant obtained $ 600; that said sum was obtained by means of certain false and fraudulent representations made at the time, which are set out in the information. Among other things, it was charged that the defendant represented to the said Class that the firm of Shaw & Ashe, of which the defendant was a member, owned certain promissory notes which were executed by various parties and payable to the order of said firm, and then enumerated them; that the defendant represented the notes to be in the possession of himself and the firm; that none of them had been paid, or any part thereof; that he had good right to pledge them as security for the loan of said sum of $ 600; that Class believed and relied upon the representations; that at the time the $ 600 was paid, Class received from the defendant four of the notes mentioned; the other notes mentioned were promised, but never in fact delivered. The information contained the allegation that one of the notes had been paid before the same was delivered, except a small sum, and that the defendant well knew at the time it had been paid; and that a large number of the other notes enumerated were not owned by Shaw & Ashe or the defendant. The information further alleged that each and all of the representations made by Ashe were false and untrue, and were known by the defendant to be false and untrue at the time he made them, and were made with the intent to cheat and defraud Class out of $ 600. It appears from the record in this case that a jury was impaneled and the trial commenced; the state offered evidence to sustain the averments in the information, when the defendant interposed the objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Yowell
...stages of the proceeding, prior to the time of impaneling a jury to try the cause. See, e. g., Rice v. State, 3 Kan. 141, 167; State v. Ash, 44 Kan. 84, 24 P. 72; State v. Hupp, 154 Kan. 410, 118 P.2d In leaving this point it can be stated that even if questions raised with respect thereto ......
-
State v. Detloff
...S.) 854;Tingue v. State, 90 Ohio St. 368, 108 N. E. 222, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 1156;People v. Oscar, 105 Mich. 704, 63 N. W. 971;State v. Ashe, 44 Kan. 84, 24 P. 72. It was held in State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594, 178 S. W. 489, that an indictment alleging that the defendant procured a loan of mon......
-
State v. Detloff
...162 Iowa 336, 144 N.W. 32; Tingue v. State, 90 Ohio St. 368 (108 N.E. 222); People v. Oscar, 105 Mich. 704 (63 N.W. 971); State v. Ashe, 44 Kan. 84 (24 P. 72). It was held State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594 (178 S.W. 489), that an indictment alleging that the defendant procured a loan of money f......
-
Mills v. State
...support of it. United States v. Harmon (D. C.) 45 F. 414; Rice v. State, 3 Kan. 141; State v. Jessup, 42 Kan. 422, 22 P. 627; State v. Ashe, 44 Kan. 84, 24 P. 72; State v. Risley, 72 Mo. 609. A motion in arrest judgment will not lie for the improper admission or exclusion of evidence. McCle......