State v. Evers
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 542 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. EDWARD EVERS AND JOHN EVERS, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
G. P. Strong, for appellant.
I. The indictment fails to charge any offense punishable under the statute.
II. The indictment does not allege that McDermott believed the false pretenses to be true, or that he was deceived by them, or that he was induced to part with his money by reason of these false pretenses and representations. These are essential allegations. See forms of indictment. (People v. Smith, 5 Parkes' Crim. Rep. 491; The People v. Cook, 6 Parkes' Crim. Rep. 32.)
H. B. O'Reilly, for respondent, cited in argument Commonwealth v. Drew, 17 Pick. 183; The People v. Haynes, 14 Wend. 555, 559; Rex v. Jennison, 9 Cox Cro. Cas. 168; Rex v. Douglass, 1 Moody, 462; State v. Raule, 14 Conn. 101; Wagn. Stat. 461, § 47; Young v. Rex, 3 T. 98.)
This was a prosecution against the defendants for obtaining money from one Owen McDermott, the prosecutor, by false pretenses. The indictment is substantially as follows, to-wit: “That Edward Evers and John Evers, late of St. Louis, in the county of St. Louis aforesaid, on the fifteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, at St. Louis, in the county of St. Louis aforesaid, with intent to cheat and defraud one Owen McDermott, unlawfull, knowingly, designedly and feloniously did falsely pretend to said McDermott that neither of them, the said Edward Evers and John Evers, had any partnership or business connection with one Joel W. Cormack, in certain grain separating and cleaning machinery, then in use at 114 South Commercial street, in said city of St. Louis, or in the grain-cleaning business carried on there; that the machinery and apparatus aforementioned, then in use at 114 South Commercial street, had capacity for and would clean 1,000 bushels every day of such grain as would afford a profit to clean by such process; that with a capital of $1,000 deposited as a margin or security with any respectable commission merchant, such merchant could and would readily guarantee a daily supply of 1,000 bushels of such grain as would afford a profit to clean by said machinery; that with a capital or margin so deposited as aforesaid, after allowing for all possible losses, delays and contingencies, a net profit of at least $400 per week could be realized in said business or enterprise; that the net profits in one lot of some 257 bushels of wheat, which said McDermott had caused to be purchased for the purpose of testing said machinery, were $33; that the total amount of money which the said McDermott should invest in said business or enterprise in conjunction with said John Evers would be deposited, together with the amount said John Evers might add thereto, with Messrs. Bell & McCreery, commission merchants at 104 South Commercial street aforesaid, to the joint credit of said McDermott & John Evers, and for their sole use and benefit, and to be by said Bell & McCreery used in furnishing to said McDermott & John Evers, a daily supply of grain such as would be suitable for the business and afford a profit to them; that said Bell & McCreery had promised to said McDermott & John Evers on a margin of $1,000, to be deposited with them as security, 1,000 bushels daily of such grain as would be suitable for the business and afford a profit to clean; that better terms and conditions would be made with Messrs. Bell & McCreery by said Edward Evers than could be made by said McDermott with said parties; and that said Edward Evers was one of the wealthiest, most honorable and influential St. Louis capitalists, a great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Young
...well settled that the information must charge and well settled that the proof must show (State v. Dines, 206 Mo. 649, 105 S.W. 722; State v. Evers, 49 Mo. 542; State v. Bohle, 182 Mo. l. c. 58, 81 S.W. 179) he who is said to be deceived was in fact deceived, that is, that he did not part wi......
-
State v. Young
...settled that the information must charge, and well settled that the proof must show (State v. Dines, 206 Mo. 649, 105 S. W. 722; State v. Evers, 49 Mo. 542; State v. Bohle, 182 Mo. 65, 81 S. W. 179), that he who is said to be deceived was in fact deceived; that is, that he did not part with......
-
Hagan v. Continental National Bank
... ... Affirmed ... Boyle, ... Priest & Lehmann for appellant ... (1) The ... bill does not state facts that would entitle plaintiff to any ... equitable relief. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to ... set aside sales of personal property ... ...
-
The State v. Barnes
...Mo. 518; State v. Timeus, 232 Mo. 184; State v. Phelan, 159 Mo. 122; State v. Holden, 48 Mo. 93; State v. Hesseltine, 130 Mo. 468; State v. Evers, 49 Mo. 542; 2 Bishop, Procedure, sec. 818; Schramm v. People, 220 Ill. 16; Hubert v. State, 74 Neb. 220. It is the cardinal rule of criminal ple......