State v. Clamp

• Decision Date: 27 October 1931
• Docket Number: 23134.
• Citation: 164 Wash. 653,3 P.2d 1096
• Parties: STATE v. CLAMP.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

3 P.2d 1096

164 Wash. 653

STATE v. CLAMP.

No. 23134.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 27, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Ernest M. Card, Judge.

H. C Clamp was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses trick, and device, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

L. B Sulgrove, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Bertil E. Johnson, H. B. Gardner, and B. D. Scott, all of Tacoma for the State.

HOLCOMB, J.

Appellant and one Patterson were jointly charged with obtaining money by false pretenses, trick, and device. The charge was that the two defendants confederated together, appellant falsely representing that he was a broker and agent of Patterson and sold a wash rack and auto laundry business and fixtures in Tacoma, Pierce county, Wash., by making false representations concerning the same upon which the purchaser relied and believed and by which he was induced to pay them the sum of $350; it being alleged that defendants falsely represented 'That the same had been purchased by the said E. R. Patterson four months prior thereto for the sum of $800.00 cash, and had been operated by him during that time and they, then and there, by means of said false and fraudulent representations, pretenses, trick and device, which the said Christiansen believed and upon which he relied, induced the said Carl Christiansen to pay them the said sum of $350.00 for a one-half interest in and to said business and fixtures, but in truth and in fact the said H. C. Clamp was not a broker or agent of said E. R. Patterson, but was his confederate, and the said E. R. Patterson did not own said wash rack and auto laundry fixtures, had not purchased the same at any time nor for any sum and had no title thereto, and the said business and fixtures had not been operated by said H. C. Clamp or E. R. Patterson prior thereto.'

Defendants were tried jointly and convicted. Motions for a new trial were interposed upon the ground of error at law occurring at the trial which were denied, and defendants were sentenced. Defendant Clamp separately appeals.

The evidence shows that appellant came to Tacoma with Patterson and, through advertisements in a local newspaper, met Christiansen, the complaining witness. Appellant introduced him to Patterson. Appellant and his codefendant had previously made arrangements with a firm by the name of Crusoe Brothers to rent a wash rack, operated in connection with a service station at Seventeenth street and Pacific avenue. They had concluded their arrangements with Crusoe Brothers, and it was agreed that Patterson should rent the rack. Patterson represented to the Crusoe Brothers that appellant was his uncle. During the negotiations with Crusoe Brothers and in the presence of appellant, Patterson represented himself as one James Howard and the receipt for an initial payment on the first month's rent was issued to James Howard. The chattels and equipment, which had been rented by Crusoe Brothers at Seventeenth and Pacific, were of substantial value totalling about $700. They did not own the equipment and chattels, but merely rented or leased them. At about the same time appellant set himself up as a curbstone broker. He had no office space in any building, but secured the right to use a telephone and meet prospects at the auto laundry of one Fairweather. In negotiating with Fairweather appellant used the name of Harry Clark. Appellant published an advertisement in Tacoma newspapers under the classifiation of business opportunities, reading: 'Partner auto laundry. $50.00 a week, share profits. Experience unnecessary if steady and willing. Help service cars. Small investment.'

In response to this advertisement the complainant, Christiansen approached appellant about October first. Christiansen met appellant at the Fairweather auto laundry. After a brief conversation with him, appellant took Christiansen out in front of the building of the Fairweather auto laundry and introduced him to Patterson under the name of James Howard. The three of them then talked about the purchase of a half interest in the wash rack that Patterson was represented to own, but did not own. During this conversation at which all three men were present, Patterson represented that he had bought the auto laundry four months Before , had paid $800 for it, and that now he had so much business he wanted a partner. Patterson then took Christiansen in the car with him, and they drove down to the Crusoe Brothers wash rack, where Patterson showed him all of the equipment that he said he owned in the operation of the business. They then returned to the Fairweather auto laundry, met appellant, who had a bill of sale already made out, and Christiansen went to his bank to secure the $350 for the purchase of the half interest in the wash rack. Patterson then acknowledged the bill of sale Before a notary public under the name of James Howard and warranted that the equipment in the wash rack was free and clear of all incumbrances and that he was the sole owner thereof. Upon the payment of the purchase price by Christiansen, the bill of sale was delivered by Patterson to him. Christiansen went to the wash rack he was supposed to have purchased the following morning, but Patterson never returned. On the day that Christiansen paid him, Patterson gave appellant $100 of the money and the two of them left on the same afternoon for Vancouver, B. C. They remained in Vancouver about a week and came back to Seattle together, where they set themselves up in business in a similar manner. After a brief visit to Tacoma by Patterson, where he learned that the officers were looking for him, he returned to Seattle and there rented another auto laundry under the assumed name of Reynolds. Appellant, under the name of Harry, again set...