State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 12 January 1915
• Docket Number: 40.
• Citation: 92 A. 1037,124 Md. 592
• Parties: STATE v. EDWARDS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

92 A. 1037

124 Md. 592

STATE v. EDWARDS.

No. 40.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 12, 1915

Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Thos. Ireland Elliott Judge.

"To be officially reported."

John Edwards was indicted for obtaining property by false pretenses. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Edgar Allan Poe, Atty. Gen., William F. Broening, State's Atty., of Baltimore, and Horton S. Smith and Lindsay C Spencer, Asst. State's Attys., all of Baltimore, for the State.

BRISCOE J.

This case was submitted without oral argument. The indictment contains three counts. The first charges the traverser with obtaining one clock, of the value of $8, from Louis R. Wolf by a certain false pretense made to one Dundas Logan, who was then and there the agent and servant of the said Wolf, with intent to defraud, knowing the false pretense to be false. The second count charges the larceny of the property, and the third with receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen. The traverser demurred to the first count, and his demurrer was sustained, and a judgment entered in favor of the traverser, upon this count. He was tried before the court, without a jury, upon the second and third counts, upon the plea of not guilty, and was acquitted. From the action of the criminal court of Baltimore city in sustaining the demurrer to the first count of the indictment, the state has appealed.

The single question in the case is as to the sufficiency and validity of the first count of the indictment, which was declared by the court below to be bad, and insufficient to sustain a conviction under it. The first count, as set out in the record, is as follows:

"The jurors of the state of Maryland, for the body of the city of Baltimore, do on their oath present that John Edwards, late of the city of Baltimore aforesaid, on the twenty-eighth day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fourteen, at the city of Baltimore aforesaid, by a certain false pretense by him then and there made to Dundas Logan, who was then and there the agent and servant of Louis R. Wolf (which said false pretense was not then and there a mere promise for future payment, and was not then and there a mere promise for future payment not intended to be performed), unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did obtain from Louis R. Wolf one clock, of the value of eight dollars current money, of the goods, chattels, moneys, and property of Louis R. Wolf, with intent then and there to defraud, he, the said John Edwards, then and there well knowing the said false pretense to be false then and there contrary to the form of the act of assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the state."

The offense of obtaining goods or chattels by false pretense with intent to defraud is a misdemeanor in this state, and is punished as provided in section 122, art. 27, vol. 3, of Bagby's Code. This section provides that:

"Any person who shall by any false pretense obtain from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be punished by fine and imprisonment, or by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two years nor more than ten years, as the court shall award: Provided always, that if upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanor it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny or robbery, he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor; and no person tried upon such misdemeanor shall be afterwards liable to be prosecuted for larceny or robbery upon the same facts; and provided also, that a mere promise for future payment, though not intended to be performed, shall not be sufficient to authorize a conviction under this section."

It is a well-settled rule of criminal pleading that it is an essential requisite to a valid indictment that the particular offense should be charged with reasonable clearness and certainty, and that it should allege all matters material to constitute the offense charged against the accused; one of the objects being to enable the accused to plead a former acquittal or conviction in bar of a second prosecution for the same offense.

In indictments for obtaining goods and chattels by false pretenses the Legislature of the state has removed the necessity by statute of some of the technical allegations of fact, formerly required in indictments of this class of cases. By section 498, art. 27, of the Code, it is provided that in any indictment for false pretenses it shall not be necessary to state the particular false pretense intended to be relied on in proof of the same; but the defendant, on application to the state's attorney before trial, shall be entitled to the names of the witnesses and a statement of the false pretenses intended to be given in evidence. And by section 501 of the same article of the Code it is further provided it shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining any property by false pretenses to allege that the defendant did the act with the intent to defraud, without alleging the intent of the defendant to be to defraud any particular person, and upon trial it shall not be necessary to prove an intent on the part of the defendant to defraud any particular person, but it shall...