State v. Daniel

• Decision Date: 30 July 1909
• Citation: 65 S.E. 236,83 S.C. 309
• Parties: STATE v. DANIEL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

65 S.E. 236

83 S.C. 309

STATE v. DANIEL et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 30, 1909

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; R W. Memminger, Judge.

R. E Daniel and E. L. Oulla were convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and they appeal. Reversed.

John Gary Evans, R. K. Carson, and J. W. Nash, for appellants. T S. Sease, Sol., and C. P. Sims, for the State.

WOODS J.

The defendants were convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses at the January, 1909, term of the court of general sessions for Spartanburg county. At the close of the evidence for the state defendants' counsel requested the court to instruct the jury to acquit the defendants, and after conviction they made a motion for a new trial, on the ground that there was a total failure of evidence to sustain the charge made in the indictment. Justice to the circuit court requires us to say that the point on which we think the case turns was not distinctly presented in the request for the direction of a verdict of acquittal. Rule 77 of the circuit court requires: "The point that there is no evidence to support an alleged cause of action shall be first made either by a motion for nonsuit or a motion to direct the verdict; and the point that there is no evidence to support a defense shall be first made by motion to direct a verdict." This rule was adopted to prevent the waste of time of the courts which results from deferring the consideration of the points mentioned in the rule for presentation to the court on motions for new trials. As this is a criminal cause involving the liberty of citizens, the doubt as to whether the important point about to be discussed was made under the motion to direct a verdict will be solved in favor of the defendants.

The statute on which the indictment rested enacted: "Any person who shall, by any false pretense or representation, obtain the signature of any person to any written instrument, or shall obtain from any other person any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property, real or personal, with intent to cheat and defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding three years." Cr. Code 1902, § 168. The indictment charged: "That R. E. Daniel and E. L. Oulla, on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, with force of arms, at Spartanburg courthouse in the county of Spartanburg and state aforesaid, unlawfully and knowingly devising and intending to cheat and defraud M. E. Looper of her goods, moneys, chattels, and property, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly falsely pretend to her that the Oulla Furniture Company as a business was worth $8,100 over all debts and liabilities, and was then and there paying $100 per week profits on cash sales, and in addition thereto was making a large sum on the installment business, whereas in truth and fact the said furniture business was not worth anything above its debts and liabilities, and said business was not paying any profits on cash business, and in addition thereto was making nothing on its installment business, as they, the said R. E. Daniel and E. L. Oulla, then and there well knew to be false. By color and means of said false pretenses they, the said R. E. Daniel and E. L. Oulla did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly obtain from the said M. E. Looper $2,500 lawful money of the United States, of the value of $2,500, being then and there the property of the said M. E. Looper, with intent to cheat and defraud the said M. E. Looper to the great damage of the said M. E. Looper."

In deciding whether the circuit court was in error in refusing to direct a verdict for a total failure of evidence to sustain the charge made in the indictment, all the testimony must be taken most strongly against the defendants. Viewing the evidence in that way, these facts appear: The prosecutor Mrs. Looper, in July, 1907, at the suggestion of the defendant...