State v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 27 June 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 1024,117 Mo. 371
• Parties: The State, Appellant, v. Cameron
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 S.W. 1024

117 Mo. 371

The State, Appellant, v. Cameron

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

June 27, 1893

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge.

Affirmed.

R. F Walker, Attorney General, for the state.

(1) The indictment charges the defendant with unlawfully and feloniously obtaining a negotiable promissory note with the intent to cheat and defraud. Sec. 3826, Revised Statutes 1889. (2) The form prescribed by the statute being carefully followed, and the material requisites alleged, the indictment is sufficient. State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; State v. McChesney, 90 Mo. 120; State v. Horn, 93 Mo 190; State v. Crooker, 95 Mo. 389; State v. Clay, 100 Mo. 571; State v. Morgan, 112 Mo. 202; State v. Jackson, 112 Mo. 585. (3) The indictment is not multifarious nor defective for uncertainty. The offense is clearly charged, and the accused cannot be misled as to the nature of the crime preferred against him. State v. Fancher, 71 Mo. 460. (4) It is sufficient to allege the methods by which the fraud was accomplished. This the indictment does in the language prescribed by the statute. The different methods set forth are necessary ingredients, under the statute, of the crime charged. State v. Porter, 75 Mo. 171. (5) The indictment clearly informs the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation and the act he is required to defend. Constitution of Missouri, art. 2, sec. 22; State v. Fancher, 71 Mo. 460.

OPINION

Burgess, J.

-- At the September term, 1891, of the circuit court of Lincoln county, Missouri, there was returned into court by the grand jury, an indictment against defendant, which is as follows:

"The grand jurors of the state of Missouri, empaneled, sworn and charged to inquire within and for the body of the county of Lincoln, state of Missouri, upon their oaths do charge and present that one A. Q. Cameron, on or about the twenty-eighth day of April, A. D. 1891, at the county of Lincoln, state of Missouri, with intent to cheat and defraud one, Gophat Stimlinger, of his money, property and other valuables, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously obtain from said Gophat Stimlinger his negotiable promissory note, which said note bound the said Gophat Stimlinger for the payment of $ 542.25, by means and use of a trick and deception, and by false and fraudulent representations and statements and false and fraudulent pretense, and by means of the confidence game, and by means and use of a written instrument, and which said negotiable promissory note, obtained in the manner and by the means aforesaid from the said Gophat Stimlinger by the said A. Q. Cameron, was then and there a thing of value, and bore the date of April 23, A. D. 1891, and was payable ninety days after date to the said A. Q. Cameron or bearer, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

On the twelfth day of April, and during the April term of said court, the defendant filed his motion for a change of venue, which was granted, and the cause was sent to the circuit court of Montgomery county, Missouri.

At the July term of the Montgomery circuit court the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment against him, to-wit:

"Now comes the defendant in above cause and moves the court to quash the indictment herein for the following reasons: First. Because said indictment does not charge the defendant with any offense to the laws of this state. Second. Because said indictment is insufficient in form and substance. Third. Because said indictment charges the defendant with the use of several different means in the accomplishment of the pretended fraud, without specifying which one of said means did in fact accomplish said pretended fraud. Fourth. Because the different means for the accomplishment of a fraud specified in section 3826 do not mean the same thing, and cannot be used in the aggregate in charging one offense under said section. Fifth. Because said indictment does not inform said defendant which act or acts of his he is required to defend. Sixth. Because said indictment does not inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by section 22, article 2, of the constitution of the state."

On the nineteenth day of July, 1892, at said July term of said court, the motion to quash was by the court sustained, and judgment rendered discharging the defendant. The state prayed and was granted an appeal. No brief has been filed by defendant.

The indictment is drawn under the provisions of section 3826, Revised Statutes, 1889, which is as follows:

"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 means or by use of any trick or deception or false or 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 other printed or engraved instrument, or spurious coin or metal, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding seven years. In every indictment under this section it shall be deemed and held a sufficient description of the offense to charge that the accused did on unlawfully and feloniously obtain or attempt to obtain (as the case may be) from A. B. (here insert the name of the person defrauded) his or her money or property, by means and by use of a cheat or fraud, or trick or deception, or false and fraudulent representation or statement, or false pretense or confidence game, or false and bogus check or instrument, or coin or metal, as the case may be, contrary to the form of the statute," etc.

The indictment charges the defendant with...