State v. Bohle

• Decision Date: 10 May 1904
• Citation: 81 S.W. 179,182 Mo. 58
• Parties: STATE v. BOHLE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

81 S.W. 179

182 Mo. 58

STATE v. BOHLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 10, 1904.

FALSE PRETENSES — ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE — RELIANCE — EVIDENCE — RES GESTÆ — VERDICT.

1. The fact that prosecutor in a prosecution for obtaining property by false pretenses believed defendant's false representations to be true, and acted thereon to his injury, is an essential element of the offense.

2. Where, in a prosecution for obtaining property under false pretenses, all the evidence tended to show that the property was of the value of $91.50 — there being no controversy at the trial on such question — and the court charged the jury, if they found defendant guilty, to assess his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary, if they found the goods of the value of $30 or more, a verdict finding defendant guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses, as charged in the indictment, and assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, was not objectionable for failure to state the value of the goods.

3. Where, in a prosecution for obtaining goods by false pretenses, the state's evidence showed that defendant bought the goods on the representations alleged, made a request to deliver them to a certain address, and was thereafter cognizant of the place where they were delivered, he was not entitled to an acquittal on the ground that there was no proof of the delivery of the goods to him.

4. In a prosecution for obtaining goods under false pretenses, evidence of a witness as to what was done respecting the delivery of the goods was admissible as a part of the transaction.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neill Ryan, Judge.

William Bohle was convicted of obtaining property under false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. Fensky, for appellant. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

FOX, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for obtaining property upon false pretenses. Defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of obtaining property under false pretenses. The indictment charges that he contrived, designed, and intended to cheat and defraud the People's House Furnishing Company, a corporation, of its goods, wares, and merchandise, by means of false pretenses. The false pretenses used by the defendant in the perpetration of the offense are set out in the indictment in this way: "Did apply to and request the said People's House Furnishing Company, its officers, agents, and servants, to sell him a certain lot of furniture and merchandise, hereinafter set out and mentioned, on credit; and, to induce the said People's House Furnishing Company to sell him the said goods on credit, and to effect his design and intent to cheat and defraud the said People's House Furnishing Company, the said William Bohle, alias George Yeager, alias Louis Baldwin, did then and there designedly, feloniously, and falsely pretend and state to the said People's House Furnishing Company, its officers, agents, and servants, that he, the said William Bohle, alias George Yeager, alias Louis Baldwin, was one George Yeager; that he was a workingman, receiving good wages, and able to pay for said furniture and merchandise; that he was employed at the Lafayette Brewery, and had been so employed for a number of years; that he was then and there a married man, and resided with his wife at No. 2306 Wash street, in said city of St. Louis; that he would pay for said goods in installments of eight dollars the sixteenth day of each month following the sixteenth day of October, 1902; and the said People's House Furnishing Company, its officers, agents, and servants, believing the said false pretenses and representations so made as aforesaid by the said William Bohle, alias George Yeager, alias Louis Baldwin, to be true, and relying thereon, were then and there induced by the said false pretenses and false representations aforesaid to then and there sell and deliver to him, the said William Bohle, alias George Yeager, alias Louis Baldwin," certain furniture described in the indictment. After charging the false pretenses as above stated, the indictment set out the property thus obtained, and fixed its value at $91.50. It then negatives the false pretenses charged.

The principal witnesses upon whom the state must rely to maintain this conviction was Mr. Sharp, the salesman for the furniture company, and Gustave A. Debus, to whom the pretenses and representations were made, and by whom the goods were sold to the defendant. Their testimony fully supports the charge in the indictment as to the representations and pretenses, and other testimony by the state strongly tends to prove the falsity of the representations; but, as to the essential allegations in the indictment, that the company or its agents believed the pretenses and representations to be true, and relied upon them, and by reason thereof were induced to sell and deliver the goods to defendant, the testimony is not entirely satisfactory, however sufficient to support the finding. After Mr. Sharp sold the defendant the goods, and received $10 in part payment, the bookkeeper prepared the note and chattel mortgage to secure its payment. The bookkeeper states that the note and mortgage were signed by the defendant as Geo. Yeager. It will suffice to say that the testimony by the state tended to make out the case as charged in the indictment. On the part of the defendant there was testimony tending to prove good reputation for honesty and integrity; and the defendant, who testified in his own behalf, denied the testimony as given by Sharp and the bookkeeper of the company, and he further testified that the furniture was not purchased for himself, but for a man by the name of Yeager. Other witnesses were introduced, whose testimony tended to corroborate the testimony of the defendant as to the goods being bought for Yeager.

The court instructed the jury, and, after submission of the cause, the jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of obtaining property by means of false pretenses, as charged in the indictment, and assess the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. Jacob M. Stuber, Foreman."

We will further discuss the testimony and instructions of the court during the course of the...