State v. James
| Decision Date | 31 October 1876 |
| Citation | 63 Mo. 570 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JAMES, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.
Lay & Belch, for Appellant, cited: Chitt. Cont. 218; 1 Pars. Cont. 42; Greenl. Ev. § 68; State vs. Page, 19 Mo. 213, 219-20; People ex rel. Tweed vs. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559; U. S. vs. Magwire, Ap. 1876, p. 273.
J. A. Hockaday, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent, cited: State vs. Page, 19 Mo. 219; State vs. Roehm, 61 Mo. 83; Edwardson vs. Garnhardt, 56 Mo. 87; 49 Mo. 298; 51 Mo. 269; State vs. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; Hayden vs. Tucker, 37 Mo. 225; Gregory vs. Regina, 15 Q. B. 974; Young vs. The King, 3 Q. B. 98; People vs. Gates, 13 Wend. 311; People ex rel. Tweed vs. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 564, and authorities cited by district attorney.
The indictment in this case is founded on Wagn. Stat., 210, § 1, and consists of three counts. The first count charges that defendant being a person unauthorized so to do, did unlawfully create, issue and put in circulation as a circulating medium divers notes, to-wit: two notes, each of the denomination of one dollar, and each note evidencing that it would be received in payment of debts and used as a currency and medium of exchange in lieu of money, contrary, etc., against the peace, etc., of the State. The second count charges the same offense, and only varies from the first in using the word “scrip” instead of “notes.” The third count only varies from the other two in charging defendant with creating and circulating, etc., two notes each, of the denomination of five dollars. At the August term of the Phelps County Circuit Court, defendant was tried by a jury, and was found guilty as charged in the first and second counts, and his fine assessed at five thousand dollars on each count. Upon this finding the court entered up judgment against defendant for ten thousand dollars. After the overruling of motions in arrest and for a new trial, to which exceptions were taken, the cause was brought here by appeal.
It is urged here that the indictment is defective because the notes and scrip are not sufficiently described, and because no offense known to the statute is charged.
The statute on which the indictment is founded (Wagn. Stat., 210, § 1,) declares “that no person unauthorized by law shall create or put in circulation as a circulating medium any note, bill, check or ticket, or other instrument of writing purporting or evidencing that any money will be paid to the receiver, bearer or holder thereof, or to any person by any name or description whatsoever, or that it will be received in payment of debts or be used as a currency or medium of trade, in lieu of money.” The indictment states every fact and circumstance descriptive of the offense as defined by the statute, and follows the language of it, and is therefore sufficient under repeated decisions of this court. (State vs. Bateson, 31 Mo. 343; State vs. Stubblefield, 32 Mo. 563; State vs. Hereford, 13 Mo. 3.)
In support of the indictment the State offered in evidence two engraved notes, as follows:
State of Missouri,
(Vignette) No. 599. One. Merrimac Iron Works, A.
February 1, 1869.
I will pay to the bearer one dollar in merchandise at cash prices, on presentation of this note at my store.
WM. JAMES.
The other note was of the same date and description.
In further support of the indictment several witnesses were permitted to testify that such notes as the above were in circulation at St. James; that the defendant had places of business in St. James; that they had given notes like the above to the book-keeper of defendant in payment of bills of flour, etc., bought at defendant's mill and store, and also to one Pinto and others who did business for defendant in payment of debts for rent and shop bills.
Defendant objected to the reception of the evidence, on the ground that it was not first shown that such agents had authority from defendant to issue, pay out or receive such notes. Under the second section of the act on which this proceeding is instituted, it is made an offense for any person to put in circulation any such note as is described above; and by the third section, it is unlawful for any person to receive or offer in payment any such note. So that their agents, in putting in circulation, receiving or offering in payment the notes in question were guilty of unlawful acts amounting to misdemeanors, so far as they related to the circulation of such paper, and unless the defendant was connected with these unlawful acts by other evidence than that which showed a general employment of these agents, he is not liable for their acts. If these acts were done by the command or direction of defendant, then both would be equally liable to the penalties which the law imposes. This command or direction to the agent could be shown by direct evidence of the fact, or by his presence at the time of their being thus put in circulation, or at the time they were received in payment for debts or for merchandise sold. The only authority which the law presumes to be conferred on an agent is an authority to do all lawful acts pertaining to his employment. (1 Greenl. Ev. § 68.) While the evidence offered could not be received to bind defendant, unless he was connected with the transaction by other evidence, it might well have been received for the purpose of showing that such notes were in circulation in that community. If in the progress of the trial the evidence failed to connect defendant with such circulation, the court should have instructed the jury as to its legal effect.
The fact of creating and circulating such notes must be established, as other facts are established. It must be shown that they were made by the defendant, or authorized to be made, or recognized by him after they were made, or that they were circulated by him, or that he authorized them to be circulated.
The objection made to the reception of the notes in evidence on the ground that they did not support the allegations of the indictment, and that there was no evidence that defendant had created the notes, was properly overruled. The notes offered as evidence answered fully the description in the indictment, and it was shown by one witness that defendant on one occasion gave “greenbacks” for two of them of the denomination of five dollars each.
On the part of the State the court instructed the jury, that if defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Wilson
... ... cases of obtaining property by false pretenses, where ... entirely different allegations are necessary, because ... entirely different principles prevail. State v ... Madden, 81 Mo. 422; State v. Davis, 70 Mo. 467; ... State v. Roehm, 61 Mo. 82; State v. James, ... 63 Mo. 570; State v. Barr, 81 Mo. 118; State v ... Stogsdale, 67 Mo. 630; State v. Tissing, 74 Mo ... 72; State v. Anderson, 81 Mo. 78; State v ... McDaniel, 40 Mo.App. 356. (4) The appellant's ... contention as to the admissibility of the telegram and ... letters from the Boston ... ...
-
Butler v. Lawson
... ... Hall and Nathan Hall, all deceased, against James J. Lawson, administrator of the estate of Spence H. Gregory, deceased, Mildred L. Lawson and her husband, James J. Lawson, Emma Jennings and her ... Gregory, deceased. The petition stated that Jehu Hall departed this life intestate, in the county of Currituck, and state of North Carolina, sometime about the year 1813, leaving Lovey Hall, his widow, and three children, issue of his marriage with said Lovey, to-wit: ... ...
-
State v. Maurer
...James, 63 Mo. 570. (4) The court should have sustained a demurrer at the close of the whole case. State v. Meagher, 49 Mo.App. 571; State v. James, 63 Mo. 570. Cullen & Hay for appellant Shortell. (1) The information is a mere copy of a statute which does not individuate the offense, and is......
-
State v. Hall
...and circumstance descriptive of the offense, as defined by the statute, and follows the language of it. State v. Roehm, 61 Mo. 82; State v. Jones, 63 Mo. 570; State Stogsdale, 67 Mo. 630; State v. Maddox, 81 Mo. 421; State v. Krueger, 134 Mo. 262. (2) Keeping in view the change in the statu......