State v. Hinshaw

• Decision Date: 07 July 1914
• Docket Number: 19,310
• Citation: 142 P. 960,92 Kan. 1007
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. THOMAS JUSTIN HINSHAW, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

142 P. 960

92 Kan. 1007

THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. THOMAS JUSTIN HINSHAW, Appellant

No. 19,310

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 7, 1914

Decided July, 1914.

Appeal from Douglas district court; CHARLES A. SMART, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. OBTAINING PROPERTY BY FALSE PRETENSES--Information--Motion in Arrest of Judgment. An information charging that the defendant, by signing a check with a false name, aided another to obtain money by means of it, is not subject to a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that it does not sufficiently connect the defendant with the wrongful act, or on the ground that it does not state explicitly that the person defrauded believed the check to be good, or that he relied upon any representation that it was good.

2. TRIAL--No Error in Rulings of Court. Various trial rulings examined and held not to constitute error.

Edward T. Riling, John J. Riling, both of Lawrence, and L. D. Moore, of Winfield, for the appellant.

J. S. Amick, county attorney, for the appellee.

OPINION

MASON, J.

T. J. Hinshaw appeals from a conviction on a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses.

The information was drawn in two counts. A verdict of guilty was rendered on each, but as he was sentenced only on the second that alone is here involved. No motion to quash the information was filed, but its sufficiency was challenged by a motion in arrest of judgment. It is contended that the second count fails to state a public offense, even when given the liberal interpretation to which it is entitled when attacked in this manner. The substance of the charge, leaving out superfluous words, is that the defendant did fraudulently aid James D. Henderson to obtain from E. W. Parsons goods and money of the value of thirty-five dollars, by presenting to the said E. W. Parsons a false and bogus check for thirty-five dollars purporting to be drawn by the Auto Supply and Tire Company, per O. M. Nichols, and by buying a ring of the value of twenty dollars from the said E. W. Parsons, and giving him the said false and bogus check for the said ring and by receiving fifteen dollars in money in addition; and that the defendant, with the intent to assist James D. Henderson in cheating and defrauding, wrote the check and signed thereto the name of O. M. Nichols. In other words this count of the information charges that Henderson obtained property from Parsons by means of a false token--a check purporting to have been signed by O. M. Nichols--and that the defendant aided him by signing the name of Nichols to it. The statute permits one who aids in the commission of an offense to be charged as if he were a principal. (Crim. Code, § 115.) But it is no objection to an information that it sets out the actual facts in this regard. The information follows substantially the language of the statute defining the offense of obtaining property by a false token. The following suggestions are thought to meet the various specific objections made to the information: It was not necessary to allege that the check was ever presented for payment to the bank on which it was drawn. The allegation that it was false and bogus--that the defendant signed the name of Nichols to it with a fraudulent purpose--is sufficient to bring it within the statute. It was not necessary that the information should allege in so many words that Parsons parted with his property believing that the check was good, or relying on representations that it was good. " An allegation that 'by means of the false pretense,' or 'relying on the false pretense,' or the like, is sufficient where it is apparent that the delivery of the property was the natural result of the pretense alleged." (19 Cyc. 430.) "It is not necessary to allege specifically that the prosecutor relied on the pretense, if the connection between the pretense and the obtaining is otherwise sufficiently shown by the indictment. . . . An averment that defendant obtained the property by means of the false token is sufficient." (Notes, 19 Cyc. 431.) The value of the property obtained having been stated as thirty-five dollars, it was not necessary to add that this value was according to the...