State v. Frusha

• Decision Date: 27 March 1922
• Docket Number: 25136
• Citation: 91 So. 430,150 La. 995
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. FRUSHA

91 So. 430

150 La. 995

STATE v. FRUSHA

No. 25136

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 27, 1922

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Beauregard Thos. F. Porter, Jr., Judge.

Louis Frusha was informed against for having obtained, and for having attempted to obtain, money and property by means of the confidence game. Defendant's motion to quash the bill of information was sustained, and the State appeals.

Affirmed.

A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., Griffin T. Hawkins, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Mark C. Pickrel, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles (T Semmes Walmsley, of New Orleans, and Thos. Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, of counsel), for the State.

Ped C. Kay, of De Ridder, and Cline & Plauche, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

OVERTON, J.By Division A, composed of Chief Justice PROVOSTY and Justices OVERTON and LECHE.

OPINION

OVERTON, J.

Defendant is charged by bill of information with having obtained, and with having attempted to obtain, money and property from the New Orleans Cattle Loan Company by means of the confidence game.

The means that he is charged with having resorted to, in order to obtain, and in the attempt to obtain, the money and property of the company mentioned, are fully set out and detailed in the bill of information. It is unnecessary to mention them further than to refer to them incidentally, as they are not involved in the determination of the cause.

That which defendant obtained, by the fraudulent means alleged, as appears from the bill of information, was the renewal of a loan previously made him by the New Orleans Cattle Loan Company, which, with accrued interest, amounted to $ 66,952.58.

Defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information on two grounds, one of which is that it does not charge him with any crime known to the laws of the state of Louisiana. The reason why it is urged that the bill charges no crime, we learn from defendant's brief, is that a renewal of a loan is neither property nor money, within the meaning of the law, denouncing the confidence game; and therefore, as that law makes it essential that there must be either an obtaining or an attempt to obtain money or property, there is no crime charged.

The learned trial judge maintained the motion to quash on the above ground, and the state has appealed.

The prosecution is under Act No. 43 of 1912, section 1 of which reads:

"Every person who shall obtain or attempt to obtain from any other person, or persons any money or property, by means or by use of any false or bogus checks, or by any other means, instrument or device, commonly called the confidence game, shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than three months nor more than five years."

Section 2 of the act prescribes the manner of charging the offense and section 3, which is the last section, preserves intact the laws denouncing the obtaining of money or property under false...