State v. Black

• Decision Date: 07 January 1890
• Citation: 75 Wis. 490,44 N.W. 635
• Parties: STATE v. BLACK.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

75 Wis. 490

44 N.W. 635

STATE

v.BLACK.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 7, 1890.

Report from circuit court, Waukesha county.

It appears from the record that the defendant and his wife went to the hotel of one Dillenbeck October 25, 1888, and engaged board and lodging for himself and wife at a fixed price per week; that nothing was said at that time as to when payment should be made; that it was stated by the defendant, in effect, that he might remain only for a short time, or indefinitely; that thereupon the defendant and wife began and continued boarding with Dillenbeck, at his hotel, from October 25, 1888, to November 18, 1888, when Dillenbeck presented a bill for board, whereupon the defendant stated to Dillenbeck that he had no money then with which to pay the bill, but that he had money on deposit in the Monroe bank, at Monroe, Wis., which he expected every day, with which to pay such board; that Dillenbeck testified that he relied upon such representations, and upon the strength thereof permitted the defendant to remain and continue such board until March 1, 1889, when he left without paying for his board; that the defendant had no money on deposit in the bank, as stated; that thereupon the defendant was charged with obtaining goods, wares, merchandise, and provisions, in the form of board for himself and wife, from November 18, 1888, until February 1, 1889, and for himself alone thereafter, until March 1, 1889, all of the value of $100, the property of said Dillenbeck, by falsely pretending and representing to said Dillenbeck that the said defendant had money on deposit, as stated; that upon the trial of such issue he was convicted; that the trial judge has reported to this court for answer the two following questions, to-wit: “(1) Was the board and lodging herein, obtained under aforesaid circumstances, such property as for the receiving of which the defendant can be found guilty of a violation of section 4423 of the Revised Statutes? (2) Were the representations such as would justify, under the circumstances, the complaining witness, Dillenbeck, in relying upon them, without any inquiry as to the truth of the same, before he furnished defendant any value upon strength of said representations.”C. E. Estabrook, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Carney & Ryan, for defendant.

CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Section 4423, Rev. St., punishes the obtaining of property or a signature under the circumstances therein mentioned. The question here presented relates entirely to the obtaining of property. So much of that section as pertains to that question reads: “Any person who shall designedly, by any false pretense, or by any privy or false token, and with intent to defraud, obtain from any other person any money, goods, wares, merchandise, or other property, * * * shall be punished,” etc. To sustain a conviction under this section four things must concur. It sufficiently appears from the record that three of those things co-existed in the case at bar,--that is to say it sufficiently appears that the defendant (1) “designedly,” (2) by means of the false pretense mentioned, (3) “and with intent to defraud,” obtained the board and lodging mentioned. The only question, therefore, requiring consideration here is whether the obtaining of such board and lodging was, in legal effect, the obtaining of ...