State v. Davis.
| Citation | 194 P. 882,26 N.M. 523 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 2489.,2489. |
| Parties | STATEv.DAVIS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Intent to defraud is the gist of the offense under section 1, chapter 132, Laws 1919, where a check is given by a party on a bank which has no funds on deposit with which to pay it. It is not a violation of this section for one to give a check under such circumstances, where he does not obtain or attempt to obtain anything of value therefor; and a check so given in payment of a theretofore contracted account is not in violation of the statute.
Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; C. R. Brice, Judge.
Levi S. Davis was charged with illegally drawing and uttering a check, and bound over to the grand jury, and he applies for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner discharged, and the State appeals. Affirmed.
Intent to defraud is the gist of the offense under section 1, chapter 132, Laws 1919, where a check is given by a party on a bank which has no funds on deposit with which to pay it. It is not a violation of this section for one to give a check under such circumstances, where he does not obtain or attempt to obtain anything of value therefor; and a check so given in payment of a theretofore contracted account is not a violation of the statute.
O. O. Askren, Atty. Gen., and N. D. Meyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Geo. B. Barber and J. F. Bonham, both of Carrizozo, for appellee.
A criminal complaint was filed against petitioner in a justice of the peace court at Carrizozo, N. M., attempting to charge him with a violation of the provisions of section 1, chapter 132, Laws 1919, which in so far as material, read as follows:
“Any person who, with intent to defraud, shall make or draw or utter or deliver any check, draft or order for the payment of money upon any bank or other depositary, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, uttering or delivering that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in or credit with such bank or other depositary for the payment of such check, although no express representation is made in reference thereto, shall be guilty of attempted larceny, and if money or property is obtained from another thereby is guilty of larceny and punishable accordingly, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or imprisonment not more than five (5) years, or both.
In the prosecution under this section as against the maker or drawer thereof, the making, drawing, uttering or delivering of a check, draft or order, payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds or credit, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank or other depositary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cruz
...predecessor versions of the Act in the early part of the last century. Since our last relevant review, see generally State v. Davis, 26 N.M. 523, 194 P. 882 (1921) (applying the 1919 Act), it has been amended or replaced in its entirety nine times. See 1929 N.M. Laws, ch. 126, § 1; 1937 N.M......
-
State v. Cruz
...check in satisfaction of an antecedent or pre-existing debt will not be liable under the Worthless Check Act); State v. Davis, 26 N.M. 523, 525, 194 P. 882, 882 (1921) (construing the predecessor to the Worthless Check Act and holding that the defendant was not liable under the statute when......
-
State v. Campbell
...e.g., Hoyt v. Hoffman, 82 Nev. 270, 416 P.2d 232 (1966); West Virginia v. Stout, 142 W.Va. 182, 95 S.E.2d 639 (1956); State v. Davis, 26 N.M. 523, 194 P. 882 (1921). The Idaho statute, however, does not require that something of value be obtained by means of the worthless check. Initially i......
-
State v. Cruz, Docket No. 27,292 (N.M. App. 10/27/2009)
...check in satisfaction of an antecedent or pre-existing debt will not be liable under the Worthless Check Act); State v. Davis, 26 N.M. 523, 525, 194 P. 882, 882 (1921) (construing the predecessor to the Worthless Check Act and holding that the defendant was not liable under the statute when......