State v. Hack
| Decision Date | 04 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 18853.,18853. |
| Parties | STATE v. HACK. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction ; Calvin N. Miller, Judge. "Not to be officially published."
S. Hack was convicted of issuing a check with intent to defraud, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Jacob Mellman, of St. Louis, for appellant. Albert L. Schweitzer, Pros. Atty., and Henry J. Mueller, Associate Pros. Atty., both of St. Louis, for the State.
Appellant was convicted on a charge of issuing a check with intent to defraud, under section 3553, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919, from which conviction he has appealed.
The prosecuting witness, Wolff, testified that he was a commission merchant, and that the defendant, Hack, kept a retail store; that for some months prior to February, 1923, he had been selling produce to the defendant; that said purchases and sales were made on credit. Up to the time that the defendant gave the prosecuting witness the check in question, the defendant had settled his account weekly, sometimes paying therefor in cash and sometimes making payment by check.
It is conceded on the part of the state that at the time of the giving of the check in question the defendant owed the prosecuting witness for produce sold and delivered on various dates immediately prior to the giving of the check. Defendant, Hack, was confined to his home by illness at the time when the prosecuting witness visited him at his home for the purpose of demanding payment of his account, and on February 15, 1923, the defendant gave Wolff his check for $150 in payment of the account, which check was presented to the bank and payment refused; the reason given being that defendant had insufficient funds on deposit in the bank with which to pay the check.
The defendant testified that he gave the check in question to Wolff, telling him at the time that he did not know whether he had money enough in the bank to meet it ; that, after payment had been refused by the bank on which it was drawn, defendant testified that he paid Wolff $95 in cash at one time, and $50 at another to apply on this check. To the payment of the $50 the defendant introduced a witness who testified that he was present at the time and actually saw the payment of the said sum to Wolff, and that in the conversation Wolff admitted having received a prior payment of $95, but, when asked by Hack for the check, Wolff replied that he had left the check at home. The testimony of the defendant corroborated the said witness to like effect.
The brief filed by the state candidly admits that the rule "laid down in the case of State v. Mullins, 292 Mo. 44, 237 S. W. 502, precludes any possibility of sustaining the state's contention of the case upon appeal." After examining the record, we have come to the conclusion that this confession of error is correct.
Whilst under section 3553, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919, the giving of a check with intent to defraud is made a misdemeanor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Heidt v. The People's Motorbus Co. of St. Louis
-
State v. Garner, 53277
...in 1925 (Laws Mo.1925, p. 191) it was not an offense to give an insufficient funds check in payment of a past-due debt. State v. Hack, Mo.App., 284 S.W. 842. Since 1963, (Laws Mo.1963, p. 684) it is a felony to give a check for one hundred dollars or more for a past-due debt. RSMo 1959 Supp......
- Heidt v. People's Motorbus Co. of St. Louis.
-
State v. Lansman
...a showing was made in Wolfe v. State, 76 Fla. 168, 79 So. 449, L.R.A.1918F, 980; State v. Thompson, 37 N.M. 229, 20 P.2d 1030; State v. Hack, Mo.App., 284 S.W. 842 (not reported in Missouri State Reports); and People v. Humphries, 226 App.Div. 500, 234 N.Y.S. In Padgett v. State, 24 Ala.App......