State v. Brown

Decision Date02 July 1935
Docket NumberNo. 26435.,26435.
Citation196 N.E. 696,208 Ind. 562
PartiesSTATE v. BROWN.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Omer W. Brown was indicted for altering, forging, and increasing a claim, made and filed in his office as county auditor, and causing presentation to county board of commissioners of false and fraudulent claim on account for services pretended to have been rendered by claimant, and, from a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Alonzo L. Bales, Judge.

Russell E. Wise, of Union City, Nathan Mendenhall, of Winchester, Philip Lutz, Jr., of Boonville, and Ralph E. Hanna, of Delphi, for the State.

George H. Ward and Frederick S. Caldwell, both of Winchester, for appellee.

FANSLER, Judge.

The following indictment was returned against appellee:

‘Indictment for Presenting False Claims.

‘The Grand Jury of Randolph County, in the State of Indiana, good and lawful men, duly and legally impanelled, charged and sworn to inquire into felonies and certain misdemeanors in and for the body of said County of Randolph in the name and by the authority of the State of Indiana, on their oath present that one Omer W. Brown, late of said County, on the 9th day of July, A. D. 1932, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly alter, change, forge, and increase a claim made and filed in the name of one Nellie G. Mills, Deputy Assessor of Green Township, Randolph County, Indiana, and did file the same in the office of Omer W. Brown, who was then and there the Auditor of Randolph County, Indiana, and did cause to be presented to the Board of Commissioners of said County, a certain false and fraudulent claim upon account for services alleged and pretended to have been rendered and furnished to said County by the said Nellie G. Mills, which said presented claim was in and of the following tenor, to-wit: (Here is set out the claim, with separate items showing the month, day, year, nature of the work performed, hours, and the amount of the claim for that day in dollars.) And that said claim was altered, changed, forged and increased by the said Omer W. Brown, by increasing the number of hours worked from April 26, 1932, to May 14th, 1932, inclusive, from 128 hours worked to 184 hours, when he, the said Omer W. Brown, well knew that the said Nellie G. Mills had not worked the said number of hours as was changed and increased on her claim by the said Omer W. Brown, and the said Omer W. Brown did the aforesaid acts with the unlawful, felonious and fraudulent intent and purpose to then and there enable the said Nellie G. Mills to procure from said Board of County Commissioners of Randolph County, Indiana, an order allowing the said claim as altered, increased and filed by the said Omer W. Brown, and from said Auditor then obtain a warrant for the payment of said claim out of the County Treasury of said County, and to then and there and thereafter have the said Nellie G. Mills pay over to him, the said Omer W. Brown, the amount in excess of the sum actually due the said Nellie G. Mills for services rendered, and to there and thereby cheat and defraud the said County of Randolph, State of Indiana, as aforesaid, whereas, in truth and in fact the said Omer W. Brown well knew that the said Nellie G. Mills had not rendered all of said services as were set out in the said claim as was altered and increased by him, and as was filed by him, the said Omer W. Brown, in the Auditor's Office of Randolph County, Indiana, and the said Omer W. Brown well knew that the said Nellie G. Mills had no lawful or just demand against said County of Randolph, State of Indiana, for the entire amount as was set forth and alleged to be due and owing her in said claim which was altered, increased, and filed by him, the said Omer W. Brown, as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Pruitt v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 1975
    ...his defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain ......
  • Defries v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 26, 1976
    ...his defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain ......
  • Defries v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1974
    ...his defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain ......
  • Bailey v. State, 3--873A106
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 30, 1974
    ...his defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. (A)rt. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertai......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT