State v. Keyes

• Decision Date: 22 May 1906
• Citation: 93 S.W. 801,196 Mo. 136
• Parties: STATE v. KEYES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

93 S.W. 801

196 Mo. 136

STATE v.KEYES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 22, 1906.

1. FALSE PRETENSES—STATUTES—FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1927, provides that every person who, with intent to cheat or defraud another, shall designedly by false pretenses obtain from any person any money or other valuable thing or effects whatsoever, shall on conviction be punished, etc. Held, that where false and fraudulent representations made were neither absurd nor irrational, and were calculated to deceive the person to whom they were made, his failure to ascertain their truth or falsity by making an investigation was no defense to a prosecution under such section.

2. SAME—INSTRUCTIONS.

Where, in a prosecution for false pretenses, the first instruction required the jury to find every essential fact necessary to constitute the offense with which defendant was charged, and used the terms of the statute defining the offense which were not technical, it was not error to omit any further definition of the offense.

3. SAME—QUESTION FOR JURY.

In a prosecution for false pretenses, it was proper to refuse to submit to the jury the question whether prosecutor made an investigation of the truth of the representations made; the question whether or not the representations constituted the offense defined by the statute being a question of law for the court.

4. SAME—ISSUES AND PROOF.

Where an information for false pretenses alleged several pretenses by which prosecutor was induced to part with his money, proof of any one of them was sufficient to sustain the information.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robt.Foster, Judge.

Thomas P. Keyes was convicted of obtaining money under false and fraudulent representations, and he appeals.Affirmed.

This cause is brought here upon appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, convicting the defendant of obtaining money under false and fraudulent representations.The offense, omitting formal parts, is charged as follows by the circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis: "Comes now Arthur N. Sager, circuit attorney within and for the city of St. Louis, said city of St. Louis being the Eighth judicial circuit of the state of Missouri, and now here in court, upon his official oath, and on behalf of the state of Missouri, information makes that Thomas P. Keyes, on or about the sixth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and four, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, feloniously, designedly, knowingly and fraudulently, with the intent then and there to cheat and defraud one William Perry, did falsely represent, pretend, and state to the said William Perry" that a certain corporation known and named the St. Louis Cement Brick Manufacturing Company, and incorporated and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri, then and there had a capital stock of fifty thousand dollars fully paid up; that said corporation was then and there in good and solvent condition and circumstances, and doing a good business; that said corporation, the St. Louis Cement Brick Manufacturing Company, had a brick manufacturing plant, at which plant said corporation was then and there manufacturing fifty thousand brick per day by steam power, and that he, the said Thomas P. Keyes, was then and there the owner of twenty certain shares of the capital stock of said corporation, and that the said twenty shares of stock were then and there of the value of two thousand dollars; "and the said William Perry, believing the said false pretenses and representations so made by the said Thomas P. Keyes, as aforesaid, to be true, and being deceived thereby, was induced by reason thereof to then and there pay, deliver and transfer to the said Thomas P. Keyes two certificates of deposit dated June 21, 1904, issued to said William Perry by the Orion State Bank of Orion, Mich., for the sum of five hundred dollars each, and of the value of one thousand dollars, and one promissory note made by the said William Perry, dated at St. Louis, on the 9th day of July, 1904, payable four months after date for the sum of five hundred dollars and of the value of five hundred dollars, as and for part of the purchase price of said twenty shares of stock of the said St. Louis Cement Brick Manufacturing Company, and the said William Perry then and there did pay, deliver, and transfer the said two certificates of deposit of five hundred dollars each, and said note for five hundred dollars to him, the said Thomas P. Keyes, as and for part of the purchase price of said twenty shares of stock; and the said Thomas P. Keyes then and there feloniously, willfully, designedly, knowingly and fraudulently, in the manner aforesaid, and by means of the fraudulent representations aforesaid, did obtain of and from the said William Perry the said two certificates of deposit for five hundred dollars made by said Orion State Bank, of the value of one thousand dollars, and the said promissory note of the value of five hundred dollars, all of the property of the said William Perry, with the intent him, the said William Perry, then and there to cheat and defraud of the same.Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said corporation, the St. Louis Cement Brick Manufacturing Company, did not then and there have a capital stock of fifty thousand dollars fully paid up, and was not then and there in good and solvent condition and circumstances and doing a good businness; and, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said corporation did not then and there have a brick manufacturing plant at which said corporation was then and there manufacturing fifty thousand brick per day by steam power; and, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said twenty shares of stock, owned by the said Thomas P. Keyes, of the stock of the said St. Louis Cement Brick Manufacturing Company, were not then and there of the value of two thousand dollars, as he, the said Thomas P. Keyes, then and there well knew—contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

The facts as developed at the trial were substantially the following: That William Perry, a farmer from Michigan, went to St. Louis on the 24th day of June, 1904, and, having some money to invest, on July 5, 1904, bought an interest in a real estate firm at 801 Chestnut street.The defendant was not connected with such real estate firm, but he had an office in the same room, and in this way Perry got acquainted with him.Perry first had a conversation with the defendant on July 9th about the St. Louis Brick Cement Manufacturing Company, a corporation in which the defendant was interested, and the defendant wanted Perry to buy an interest in the brick company, which the defendant said was located in St. Louis, Mo.The defendant had a lot of sample brick in the office, which he claimed were made at the brick factory, and the defendant told Perry that the company was operating a factory by steam power and making 50,000 brick per day; that the company had a paid-up capital of $50,000; that the defendant was the overseer of the factory, and he offered to sell Perry 20 shares of the capital stock for $2,000.He told Perry the stock would pay 15 per cent. on the money invested, and that the company was a good paying company, and that the stock was worth 100 cents on the dollar.Relying upon these statements, the prosecuting witness, Perry, entered into a contract with the defendant for $2,000 worth of stock, which was to be turned over to Perry as soon as the money was paid.Perry did not go out to look at the factory before he contracted for the stock, but on July 9th, and before contracting for it, he said to the defendant, "Let's go out and look at the factory," and the defendant said, "They have broken down and won't be running until Monday.Right there lies the iron off the engine," and the defendant pointed to a piece of iron lying there in the office.On July 9, 1904, Perry gave the defendant $1,000 in checks on the Orion Michigan State Bank, and saw the cashier at a St. Louis bank cash these checks and pay the money to defendant.Perry also gave the defendant $500 in real estate, and also a note for $500 payable in four months, which note was paid in full—$250 on the 2d day of August, and $250 on the 4th day of August, 1904.On the 21st day of July the defendant gave Perry the stock in the brick company.Afterwards Perry learned that there was no brick factory manufacturing 50,000 brick a day, and the defendant told Perry that he did not have any steam brick plant.There was a little machine over at 1120 Chestnut street, operated by hand power, not steam power, with a capacity of 500 or 600 brick per day.After the prosecuting witness found that there was no steam factory, the defendant told him that they were going to build a factory as soon as they could get a railroad switch track in at Manchester and Theresa avenues, where the company had a lease on a piece of land.Perry went out there one day with the defendant, and there were no buildings on the land.On July 9th, and before putting any money in the concern, Perry went to Bradstreets to find out the standing of the corporation.Bradstreet said they did not think he had any brick factory at all.Perry went back and told the defendant what Bradstreet had said, and the defendant again stated that he had a steam power factory, and said: "Right there lies the iron from off the engine now."

The secretary of this corporation testified that on the 9th day of July, 1904, the company was in debt considerable, about $1,500, and at that time the company had no plant in St. Louis manufacturing brick at the rate of 50,000 per day by steam power; that the defendant, on July 7, 1904, had told the witness that the company was in debt; that there was only a small hand press at 1120 Chesnut street with a capacity of about 500 sample brick per day.Witness stated that on the 9th day of July, 1904,...