State v. Haines

• Citation: 106 A. 27
• Decision Date: 06 February 1919
• Docket Number: No. 85.,85.
• Parties: STATE v. HAINES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

106 A. 27

STATE

v. HAINES.

No. 85.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 6, 1919.

Error to Supreme Court

Linwood Haines was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses. Judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

On error to the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:

"The defendant was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses from one Blatchley, the charge in the indictment being that he induced Blatchley to purchase stock in a corporation, called 'Linwood Haines, Limited,' upon the representation that said corporation was solvent and purchased for cash at wholesale, was in a sound financial condition, and that its shares were a safe and sound investment, which statements were false to defendant's knowledge.

"The case is brought up on strict writ of error, and also under section 136 of Criminal Procedure Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1863) by certificate of the entire proceedings at the trial. There are no exceptions in due form to call for its examination in the former aspect but the causes for reversal are identical with the assignments of error. They are 21 in number.

"The first, that the court excluded legal evidence for defendant, and the second, that it admitted illegal evidence for the state, point to no specific rulings, and consequently require no consideration of matters of evidence. It may be well, however, to say that we have looked at the testimony cited in the brief under this head, and find that the points made are without merit. In one instance there was no ruling by the court, as to conversations in another county prior to the procurement of the money; they were competent as leading up to the actual consummation of the transaction, and statements afterwards by defendant were competent as admissions by him. The statement by defendant at a later stockholders' meeting is in this category.

"The motion to direct acquittal at the close of the state's case was rightly denied, as there was evidence for the jury of representations, charged in the indictment, inducing the payment by Blatchley, their falsity, and defendant's knowledge thereof.

"A witness was permitted to testify that certain statements on a typewritten paper, as to the amount of stock outstanding, etc., were read in defendant's presence. This was properly admitted under the well-settled rule about statements made in presence of a party, and which he fails to controvert at the time.

"The variance in date of the check (cause No. 7) was immaterial.

"The remainder of the brief (there was no oral argument) is for the most part a restatement of causes for reversal without discussion.

"Under cause No. 8, defendant attacks an instruction that the jury were to ascertain whether the pretenses made were calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence. This was too favorable to defendant. The indictment will lie even if they would not have deceived such a person. Oxx v. State, 59 N. J. Law, 99, 35 Atl. 646.

"The point made under cause No. 9 is that the court failed to add to the charge on insolvency a certain comment on the evidence....