State v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 06 January 1919
• Docket Number: 23325
• Citation: 144 La. 459,80 So. 657
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. BRADLEY

80 So. 657

144 La. 459

STATE v. BRADLEY

No. 23325

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 6, 1919

Rehearing Denied February 3, 1919

A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., and T. A. Carter, Dist. Atty., of Alexandria (Thomas W. Robertson, of New Orleans, of counsel) for the State.

John R Hunter, of Alexandria, for appellee.

DAWKINS, J., takes no part.

Note. -- A rehearing was applied for in this cause, but was withdrawn by the state.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

The state prosecutes this appeal from a judgment quashing an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: First, that, although a bill of exceptions was reserved to the court's ruling, no formal bill was signed; and, second, that the appeal was made returnable in less than 15 days from the date of the judgment.

The motion to dismiss is not insisted upon by the appellee, and we think it is without merit. The only ruling complained of by appellant is the final judgment itself, from which the appeal was taken; and the error, if there be one, appears on the face of the record. The error in the fixing of the return day of the appeal was a mistake of the court, for which an appellant should not suffer dismissal of the appeal. See Alexandria & Western Railway v. Railroad Commission, 143 La. 1067, 79 So. 863.

The indictment was quashed because it did not specify in what particular the alleged false pretense or representation was untrue. The charge was that --

The accused 'did willfully, maliciously and feloniously, by false pretenses and fraudulent representation, to wit, by falsely pretending that he had money in one certain box which was left in the possession of Mary E. Shelton, did falsely, feloniously, and upon the faith of said false representations, obtain one hundred and sixty ($ 160.00) dollars from Mary E. Shelton, knowing at the time he made said representations that the same were false, and making said representations with the felonious intent to defraud and injure the said Mary E. Shelton out of the said one hundred and sixty ($ 160.00) dollars.'

The indictment shows plainly what the alleged false pretense or representation was, viz.:

'That he (the party accused) had money in one certain box which was left in the possession of Mary E. Shelton.'

And it charges that the party accused knew, when he made the representation, that it was false. But the bill of indictment does not say in what particular the representation was false.

As technical as it may seem, the law-writers agree that, in an indictment for obtaining property or money by false pretenses, it is not sufficient to specify the pretense alleged to have been made and charge that it was false to the knowledge of the party accused. It is necessary to point out in what particular the pretense was not true, so that -- quoting article...