State v. Chapel

• Decision Date: 09 November 1893
• Citation: 117 Mo. 639,23 S.W. 760
• Parties: STATE v. CHAPEL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 S.W. 760

117 Mo. 639

STATE v. CHAPEL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 9, 1893.

FALSE PRETENSES — INDICTMENT.

An indictment charged that defendant did "unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to cheat and defraud, obtain from one F. $14.60, lawful money of the United States, of the value of $14.60, the money of F., by means and by use of a cheat, a fraud, a trick, a deception, a false and fraudulent representation and statement and false pretense, a bogus written instrument." Held, that the indictment was defective, as not informing defendant of the nature of the charge against him.

Appeal from circuit court, Newton county; J. C. Lampson, Judge.

Marius Chapel was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and appeals. Reversed.

Jas. H. Pratt, for appellant. R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

The charging portion of the indictment under which the defendant was tried and convicted is as follows: "That on or about the 28th day of September, 1892, at the county of Newton, and state of Missouri, one Marius Chapel did then and there unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to cheat and defraud, obtain from Frank Featherstun fourteen dollars and sixty cents, lawful money of the United States, of the value of fourteen dollars and sixty cents, the money of Frank Featherstun, by means and by use of a cheat, a fraud, a trick, a deception, a false and fraudulent representation and statement and false pretense, a bogus written instrument, contrary to the form of the statutes and against the peace and dignity of the state." Under the ruling of this court in State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601, 19 S. W. Rep. 206; State v. Benson, 110 Mo. 18, 19 S. W. Rep. 213; State v. Cameron, (Mo. Sup.) 22 S. W. Rep. 1024; State v. Flemming, Id., — the indictment in this cause is wholly insufficient in the particulars in those cases specified, and therefore judgment reversed, and defendant discharged. All concur.