State v. Bayne
Citation | 88 Mo. 604 |
Parties | THE STATE v. BAYNE, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 30 April 1886 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court.--HON. H. P. WHITE, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
M. A. Fyke and Burris & Goldsby for appellant.
(1) The motion to quash should have been sustained. It was necessary to allege and prove that the money was obtained with intent to cheat and defraud. R. S., sec. 1561; State v. Fancher, 71 Mo. 460. (2) Defendant's demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. There is nothing whatever in the evidence to show that defendant intended to cheat or defraud the witness, neither is there any trick or other thing developed by the testimony which constitutes any offence whatever under section 1561. Rainey v. People, 22 N. Y. 413. (3) The court erred in admitting the evidence of Gen. P. Frost. (4) The first instruction given by the court is clearly wrong, and the second and third are erroneous in that they seem to cast the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction upon defendant. The ninth is a comment upon the evidence. (5) The court erred in refusing defendant's instructions. The proposition of law contained in the first instruction asked by defendant, and refused, has met with the sanction of this court in many cases. State v. Verbach, 66 Mo. 168; State v. Chunn, 19 Mo. 233; State v. Evans, 49 Mo. 542.B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.
The indictment follows the form prescribed by the statute (section 1561) and is sufficient. State v. Simmons, 12 Mo. 268; State v. Ragan, 22 Mo. 459; State v. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386; State v. Chumley, 67 Mo. 41; State v. Fancher, 71 Mo. 460; State v. Porter, 75 Mo. 171. It was not necessary to charge that the offence was committed with intent to cheat and defraud Brooker. State v. Scott, 48 Mo. 422; State v. Smallwood, 68 Mo. 192; Morton v. People, 47 Ill. 468. The testimony of the witness, Frost, for the state, as to similar acts of defendant, was competent for the purpose of showing the intent with which the act charged was done. Com. v. Turner, 3 Met. 19; State v. Meyers, 82 Mo. 558, and cases cited. No error was committed in giving and refusing instructions.
This indictment is framed on section 1561, Revised Statutes, and follows the form prescribed in said section and is sufficient, under the rulings of this court, in the cases of State v. Fancher, 71 Mo. 460; State v. Connelly, 73 Mo. 235, and State v. Norton, 76 Mo. 180.
At the close of the evidence on the part of the state, defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled, and this action of the court is assigned as error.
The disposition of this question involves a consideration of the evidence, which is substantially as follows:
Brooker, whose money was alleged to have been obtained by defendant, testified and said:
On cross-examination, witness said:
Frost, another witness for the state, testified to the same effect as to Bayne having obtained fifteen dollars from him in the same way he obtained the money from Brooker.
J. C. Somerville, of St. Louis, whom Bayne claimed to represent, testified that he did not know defendant; that he never had been his agent, nor had he ever received any orders for supplies from Bayne.
Officer Snow, who arrested Bayne, testified as to the statements made by Brooker and Frost to him prior to Bayne's arrest, and that he saw Bayne, who promised to refund the money he had obtained from the complainants. On his failure to do so the officer went again to arrest him; found he had gone, and apprehended him at the Union depot, in Kansas City, where he was dodging around the cars and attempting to evade the officer.
If the statute on which the indictment is founded were like the New York statute, which makes it an offence to obtain money or property by mock auctions, or “ by any other gross fraud or cheat at common law,” the case of Ranney v. People, 22 N. Y. 414, to which we have been cited, would apply, and the evidence above detailed would not support the indictment. But our statute is widely different and much more comprehensive in its scope. It provides that, “Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain, or attempt to obtain, from any other person, or persons, any money, property, or valuable thing whatever, * * * by use of any trick or deception, or false and fraudulent representation or statement, or pretense, or by any other means, or instrument or device, commonly called the confidence game, or by means or by use of any false or bogus check, or by any written or printed or engraved instrument, or spurious coin or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Foley
...to show the intent with which the act charged was done. State v. Sarony, 95 Mo. 349; State v. Meyers, 82 Mo. 558; State v. Boyne, 88 Mo. 604; State v. Cooper, 85 Mo. 256. (5) Complaint is made in the motion for new trial that the instructions given were erroneous. Instruction 1 requires the......
-
The State v. Pfeiffer
...admissible, as under the peculiar facts here we rule it was, the above instruction was more favorable to defendant than otherwise. [State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; State Weisman, 238 Mo. 547, 141 S.W. 1108.] If it was a comment upon the evidence, as counsel for defendant insist, that comment ra......
-
State v. Foley
...the same town, though at different times, may be shown for the purpose of showing the intent with which the act charged was done. State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; State v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558, 52 Am. Rep. 389; State v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 44 S. W. 267; State v. Rosenberg, 162 Mo. 358, 62 S. W. 43......
-
Johnson v. State
...in the motion for new trial that the court misdirected the jury.' The same ruling was made in State v. Emory, 79 Mo. 461; and in State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604, it was held two instructions asked by defendant and refused would not be considered, because exceptions were not taken at the time of ......