State v. Harper

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: THIELE, Justice.
• Citation: State v. Harper, 137 Kan. 695, 22 P.2d 454 (Kan. 1933)
• Decision Date: 10 June 1933
• Docket Number: 30156.
• Parties: STATE v. HARPER.

22 P.2d 454

137 Kan. 695

STATE v. HARPER.

No. 30156.

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 10, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Conviction on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed, though acquittal might have been had, since on appeal evidence must be viewed most favorably to state.

Evidence sustained conviction for selling unregistered security and for selling security without broker's license (Rev. St Supp. 1931, 17--1223 et seq.).

In prosecution for selling unregistered security, testimony as to sale to each of two witnesses held competent to show that sale complained of was not isolated transaction (Rev. St Supp. 1931, 17--1225).

1. A conviction on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed though an acquittal might well have been had upon it, as on appeal the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the state.

2. The evidence examined and held sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Appeal from District Court, Reno County; John G. Somers, Judge.

C. J Harper was convicted of selling unregistered security and with having sold unregistered security without having first obtained a broker's license, and he appeals.

Jas. A. Conly and Joe Rogers, both of Wichita, for appellant.

Roland Boynton, Atty. Gen., and Max Wyman, Co. Atty., and John Fontron, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Hutchinson, for the State.

THIELE Justice.

The defendant was tried on an information containing four counts and charging commission of offenses denounced under Laws 1929, c. 140 (R. S. Supp. 1931, 17--1223 et seq.). He was found guilty on two counts; the second charging the sale of an unregistered security, and the third charging him with having sold such security without having first obtained a broker's license.

Appellant's abstract does not contain any specification of errors as required by rule 5 of this court. In his brief he discusses only the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the verdict; the concluding paragraph of the brief containing the following: "I simply believe that this testimony fails to show a sale and that this man's conviction is wrongful. I could serve no purpose by citing a long line of authorities or quoting from the decisions of this court. There isn't any law question involved in it."

As to the conviction on the second count, an examination of the record shows that one Ella Teeters, previous to the sale complained of, owned some Cities Service Company stock which she traded for Roosevelt Chain Hotels Corporation stock and bonds; that defendant met her, told her the Roosevelt bonds were apparently worthless, that the corporation was not going ahead with the construction of the hotel; that he was interested in a corporation to be organized to be known as the Tri-State Oil & Royalty Corporation, and he then took her Roosevelt bond and gave her in exchange a preorganization subscription receipt for 900 shares of the stock of the new corporation. A few days later, through another agent, she purchased an additional 100 shares, and some time thereafter received a certificate for 1,000 shares in the North American Royalty Company signed by Harper as president; it being explained that it was necessary to change the name of the corporation from the Tri-State Oil & Royalty Corporation to the North American Royalty Company. During the course of her testimony, Mrs. Teeters became somewhat confused as to whether she delivered her Roosevelt bond or only the coupons from it to the defendant, but she finally testified she gave him the bond. The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, stated he did not think he took her bond but might have. Based on his own version of the facts, defendant says there was no sale. The jury, by its verdict, has said the defendant did take the bond. A conviction on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed, though an acquittal...