State v. Fooks
| Decision Date | 04 December 1884 |
| Citation | 21 N.W. 561,65 Iowa 196 |
| Parties | STATE v. FOOKS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Hardin district court.
Defendant was indicted and convicted of obtaining money upon false pretenses. He now appeals to this court.Tom H. Milner, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The indictment charges that defendant, by false and fraudulent representations as to his property and income, induced one Cowham to loan and advance to him certain sums of money. Among other fraudulent representations, it is alleged in the indictment that defendant represented that his brother was soon to arrive in Iowa Falls, and bring with him money for defendant. The evidence supports this allegation, and shows that defendant stated that his brother was an English nobleman. Counsel for defendant insist that the allegation is immaterial, and evidence in its support was erroneously admitted, for the reason that it pertained to a matter in the future, and not to a present or past event. We think the representation that his brother was to arrive with money, coupled with a promise to use it in payment of the sums borrowed, amounted to a pretense that he had the money. This pretense was properly alleged and proved.
2. The indictment alleges that the false representations were the main cause of Cowham loaning the money to defendant. It is insisted that the false pretenses should be alleged to be the sole cause thereof; but to support a conviction it need not appear that the false pretenses were the only inducement for giving credit or delivering property to the accused. It is sufficient if they had such effect that without their influence upon the mind of the party defrauded he would not have given the credit. People v. Haynes, 11 Wend. 557. The indictment alleges that the false pretenses were the means by which defendant obtained the money, thus sufficiently showing that they were the inducements which controlled Cowham in loaning the money.
3. It is argued that the pretenses were absurd, and of such character that a prudent and intelligent man would not have been deceived thereby. The law will afford protection to the dull, stupid, confiding, and imbecile against the acts of a cheat. The wise and prudent are not alone protected. If the false pretenses were made with the design of deceiving, and thereby obtaining credit or property, and had that effect, the guilty party cannot escape on the ground of the weak credulity of his victim. See State v. Montgomery, 56 Iowa, 195;S. C. 9 N. W. REP. 120.
4. At the trial, the defendant being without money or friends, the court appointed counsel to defend him. He stated in open court that he had no means with which to employ counsel. His statements to this effect were, against his objection, proved, in order to show the fact that he was without money or property. It is now insisted the evidence was erroneously admitted. We think differently. The defendant's statements were in the nature of solemn declarations, which surely ought to be considered as evidence. It is argued that the statements were made under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Pioneer Valley Savings Bank
...crime of obtaining property under false pretenses."8 And Iowa so holds. State v. Montgomery, 56 Iowa 195, 9 N.W. 120; State v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 452, 21 N.W. 561, 773; State v. Tripp, 113 Iowa 698, 84 N.W. 546, 547; State v. Hollingsworth, 132 Iowa 471, 109 N.W. 1003, 1004; State v. Selig......
-
State v. Armstrong
...the above observation lends aid to Armstrong, being merely a condensed version of this more comprehensive statement in State v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 198, 21 N.W. 561 (1884): 'It is argued that the pretenses were absurd, and of such character that a prudent and intelligent man would not have ......
-
Pioneer Valley Savings Bank v. Indemnity Insurance Co.
...State v. Tripp, 113 Iowa 698, 84 N.W. 546; State v. Montgomery, 56 Iowa 195, 9 N.W. 120; State v. Dowe, 27 Iowa 273; State v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 452, 21 N.W. 561, 773. In the present case, Paul Dick misrepresented his present ability to have the checks given to the plaintiff Bank paid when......
-
State v. Comes, 48291
...saying 'the law will afford protection to the dull, stupid, confiding, and imbecile against the acts of a cheat.' State v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 198, 452, 21 N.W. 561, 562, 773. But there is no claim made here by the State, and could not be made under the evidence, that Wernimont was not a pe......