State v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 17 February 1913
• Docket Number: 16,364
• Citation: 60 So. 774,103 Miss. 764
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. T. M. FREEMAN

60 So. 774

103 Miss. 764

STATE v. T. M. FREEMAN

No. 16,364

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 17, 1913

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lawrence county, HON. A. E WEATHERSBY, Judge.

T. M Freeman was indicted for obtaining money under false pretenses. A demurrer was sustained to the indictment and the state appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Toxey Hall, district attorney, for the state.

The second, third, fourth and fifth grounds of demurrer raise one and the same question. We will consider them together and make only one answer thereto. These assignments are as follows: (2) The indictment fails to charge how the representation that T. M. Freeman was an agent of Caldwell &amp Smith, could induce or would likely induce H. J. Rogers to part with any money whatsoever. (3) Indictment fails to charge that there was any business transactions between H. J. Rogers and Caldwell & Smith by reason of which H. J. Rogers on representation that T. M. Freeman was an agent of Caldwell & Smith, and being such agent, by reason of such business relation, would likely be induced to part with ten dollars ($ 10) in money. (4) The indictment fails to charge that T. M. Freeman or any other person was seeking to begin business relations with H. J. Rogers and Caldwell & Smith, and by this means by representing that he was the agent of Caldwell & Smith secured the money of Caldwell & Smith. (5) The indictment fails to charge that H. J. Rogers wished to borrow any money from Caldwell & Smith, or that the ten dollars ($ 10) was paid to T. M. Freeman for any such purpose or intent.

We do not think that any of these matters need to be stated in the indictment. The indictment clearly states that it was "by means of the said false and fraudulent representation and false pretense" that the money was obtained, and this will suffice. Smith v. State, 55 Miss. 513.

The only other contention made by counsel for the defendant, is that the indictment does not charge that H. J. Rogers believed the representations made by the defendant; we submit that under the holding of Smith v. State, 55 Miss. 513, it is not necessary to allege that the representation was believed or was relied upon, but that on the contrary it is sufficient to allege that it was "by means of the false and fraudulent representation and false pretense need not be the only means used in obtaining the money, but that if such representation and pretense contributed toward enabling the defendant to obtain the money, this will suffice and it need not be so alleged in the indictment. See same case above cited.

We therefore submit that the demurrer should not have been sustained.

OPINION

REED, J.

The appeal in this case is taken from the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to the indictment charging appellee with obtaining money under false pretenses. Omitting the formal parts, the...