State v. Hacker
| Decision Date | 15 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22928.,22928. |
| Citation | 191 N.W. 37,153 Minn. 538 |
| Parties | STATE v. HACKER et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; E. A. Montgomery, Judge.
Carl F. Hacter and others were convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses, and they appeal. Affirmed.
The evidence on the part of the state is sufficient to prove that defendants obtained money by false pretenses and that all of the defendants participated in the crime.
Evidence of other similar crimes was properly received as proof of a general plan to defraud and as proof that promises made to the complaining witness could not be redeemed. Wright & Wright and Seth Lundquist, all of Minneapolis, for appellants.
C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and F. B. Olson, Co. Atty., of Minneapolis, for the State.
Defendants were indicted for grand larceny in that they obtained from Margaret Evans $2,721 by false pretenses. All were found guilty and each appeals.
[1] 1. The first contention is that there is no evidence to sustain the verdict. We think the evidence is sufficient. The first outstanding fact is that Margaret Evans was induced to part with money of the amount stated, with never at any time a prospect of its return. The method by which it was obtained from her was in short as follows: Margaret Evans was a young woman employed in a bank in the little town of Spring Green, Wis. Defendant Elizabeth Riek had formerly lived at Richland Center, which is near Spring Green, but had lived some years in Minneapolis. In February, 1920, Elizabeth went to the bank where Margaret was employed and engaged her in conversation. They spent some time together and Elizabeth proceeded to tell about the wonderful opportunities for advancement in Minneapolis, told how she had sold a farm for $8,000 and had doubled her money, and of her liberal wages, suggested she should think Margaret would want to get out of that small place and come to the city where there were better opportunities. Asked by Margaret if she thought she could find employment in Minneapolis, Elizabeth said ‘Certainly.’ After returning to Minneapolis Elizabeth wrote Margaret three letters. In one she asked Margaret to come to Minneapolis to ‘accept a position with a very large concern; the work was easy, good pay, and good future.’ Later she wrote a letter, ‘very urgent,’ to ‘come immediately,’ that a wonderful opportunity was open with a very large concern and she would hold the position open. In response to this, Margaret went to Minneapolis. She was taken by Elizabeth to a suite of three offices in a prominent office building. The names of four corporations were on the door. The offices were elegantly furnished. Elizabeth said ‘what a beautiful office to work in’ and told Margaret that was the place where she was to work. After a few minutes, Elizabeth took her out to a farm near Elk river, 30 miles away. There she met the other defendants. There defendant Carl Hacker took her in charge, took her ‘horoscope,’ flattered her, told her about the wonderful proposition he had, the Standard Farms Development Company. He said the old company was the Standard Farms Company, but that he had bought out that company and was going to organize the Standard Farms Development Company, for the promotion and development of farm lands. He said it was a wonderful proposition, well fixed financially, very large assets. The Elk River farm, he said, belonged to the company. He proposed to make Margaret treasurer of the company at a salary of $150 a month. Then he wanted her to invest her money in the corporation, agreed to give her one share of preferred and one share of common stock for the price of one share, and assured her that the dividends would be from 12 to 15 per cent., and, that in a few months she would have her money back also. He said he had invested $50,000, and each of the other defendants $2,000, said Elizabeth was a bookkeeper, Ida Edstrom a stenographer and Frances Hacker a clerk keeping house on the farm. He enjoined secrecy. After keeping her at the farm for more than a month he obtained $550 of her money. Later, by further impressing her with the dignity and emoluments of her position as treasurer, assuring her that she would have her name on the door, have the combination of the safe and the handling of all the money, assuring her that the company was about to build a very large hotel on the ‘farm,’ and taking her to various furniture houses to look at the equipment, assuring her that he had a license from the State Securities Commission to sell stock of the corporation, threatening that another candidate would get her job if she did not hurry up, he prevailed on her to go to Spring Green and procure from her father more money. While she was there he wrote her and telephoned her, and finally succeeded in getting her to produce bonds aggregating $2,600. After receipt of the first amount, at the suggestion of Frances, Carl gave Margaret a note—his personal note—and, on receiving the subsequent amount, he gave her another similar note. Though she had worked in a bank, she seemed to have little appreciation of what this meant. When he gave her the first note, he said it was merely a receipt. She asked, ‘What shall I do with it?’ He told her to keep it and she did.
In fact she never received any salary, never received any money as treasurer, never had opportunity to perform any duties as treasurer. Finally she complained that there did not seem to be anything for her to do and that she was disinterested. After some further conversation, Carl said, ‘You are too honest; you get right out of my office.’ At his suggestion she resigned as treasurer and director. He prepared a resignation which released the ‘corporate enterprise’ of all claim. She asked his attorney if it was all right for her to sign, he told her ‘Yes,’ and she signed it. Some time later she demanded her money back. She was met by the answer from Carl:
‘I can't give it back; I spent it; I squandered it; I will give you nothing; we will skin you out of everything; I will give you no stock in our company; now remember you stay away from lawyers; I am too smooth for them; that is why I am here in this office, they can't catch me.’
All of these facts are uncontroverted, save that the attorney gave a different version as to what took place when the resignation was signed. Except for this one bit of testimony, none of the defendants offered any defense.
The substantial representations made were false. The corporation never had assets of consequence, in hand or in prospect. Carl had invested no such sum as he claimed. There was no prospect and no intention of making her a real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sweeney
...N. W. 895, 184 N. W. 272; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39, 176 N. W. 171; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138, 186 N. W. 241; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538, 191 N. W. 37; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117, 192 N. W. 737; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9, 201 N. W. 913; State v. Eames, 163 Minn. 249, 20......
-
State v. De Pauw
...State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39, 43, 176 N.W. 171, 172; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210, 211, 3 N.W.2d 775, 776; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538, 191 N.W. 37; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373, 178 N.W. 895, rehearing denied 146 Minn. 380, 184 N.W. In State v. Haney, supra, this cour......
-
State v. Kiewel, 26349.
...W. 171; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373, 178 N. W. 895, 184 N. W. 272; Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256, 185 N. W. 259; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538, 191 N. W. 37; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37, 192 N. W. 194; State v. Horr, 163 Minn. 141, 148, 203 N. W. 979; State v. Sabatini, 171 M......
-
State v. Gulbrandsen
...another that proof of one tends to establish some element of the other. State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 3 N.W.2d 775; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538, 191 N.W. 37; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373, 178 N.W. 895, rehearing denied, 146 Minn. 380, 184 N.W. 272; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. ......