State v. Marshall
Decision Date | 14 February 1905 |
Citation | 59 A. 916,77 Vt. 262 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. MARSHALL. |
Exceptions from Chittenden County Court; lames W. Tyler, Judge.
Joseph H. Marshall was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses and he bungs exceptions. Affirmed.
It appeared that the O. L. Hinds Company mentioned in the information, on the 20th day of September, 1903, and for sometime previous thereto, was a corporation, and carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling at wholesale overalls and other wearing apparel; that it employed traveling salesmen for this purpose, and in September, 1903, were in need of such salesmen to travel in Missouri, Kansas, and the territories; that it advertised in some of the newspapers published in the city of New York for experienced men to cover said territory; that the respondent answered these advertisements or some of them, and applied for the situation, after making some inquiries with reference thereto by letter; that respondent had never been in the state of Vermont, except upon the occasion when he obtained the check in question; that all the arrangements, including the negotiations leading up to and ending in the contract for the respondent's services as a salesman for this company, were by correspondence; that the contract under which the respondent was to travel for said O. L. Hinds Company was executed by the respondent in the city of New York; that under the terms of this contract the respondent was to travel for said concern in said territory, and sell their goods for a commission of 7 per cent. on such sales; that said concern were to advance the respondent $160 a month for traveling expenses, which was to apply on the sums due him from commissions on such sales; that on the 21st day of September, 1903, in pursuance of requests from said O. L. Hinds Company, and after said contract had been executed, respondent went to Burlington, Vt; that while in Burlington he obtained the check in question from said O. L. Hinds Company, and that then he started for the territory in which he was to travel; that while at St. Louis he made requisition upon said O. L. Hinds Company, for a further sum of $100, which was sent him at that place; that pending the negotiations for his employment, and in response to inquiries by said O. L. Hinds Company, for information as to who respondent was, and as to his financial standing, the respondent wrote that he was Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa; that he had large property interests in that place; that the O. L. Hinds Company might refer to the book by R. G. Dun & Co. for the purpose of showing the commercial rating of Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, who the respondent said he was. The evidence of the state tended to show that the rating of Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, was very high; that the O. L. Hinds Company, previous to the employment of the respondent, made diligent inquiry as to the standing of Joseph H. Marshall, of Iowa, and found him such a man as they wanted to employ; that in fact the respondent was not Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa; that he had no property or business relations there, and that he falsely personated the said Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, for the purpose of fraudulently procuring property from the said O. L. Hinds Company.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, START, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.
Alfred L. Sherman, State's Atty., for the State.
V. A. Bullard, for respondent.
At the close of the evidence the respondent moved for a verdict of acquittal, for that the crime charged, if committed, was not committed in Vermont but in the state of New York, and because the person personated had no interest in the check which the respondent procured of the O. L. Hinds Company, and the same was not intended for him. The information, as amended, charges that Joseph H. Marshall, of Burlington, in the county of Chittenden, on, to wit the 1st day of October, 1903, at said Burlington, in the county of Chittenden, feloniously, unlawfully, and designedly did falsely personate one Tospeh H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, and represent himself to the O. L. Hinds Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Vermont, with main office at Burlington, Vt, to be the said Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, and thereupon did then and there to the said the O. L. Hinds Company falsely assume the name and person of the said Joseph H. Marshall, of Atlantic, Iowa, by means of which false assertion and pretense the said Joseph H. Marshall then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly fraudulently received of the O. L. Hinds Company, a certain order for money commonly called a bank check, which said bank check was dated on the 21st day of September, 1903, and drawn on the Howard National Bank to the order of Joseph H. Marshall, for the sum of $100, and signed "The O. L. Hinds Co., O. L. Hinds, President," which said bank check was of the value of, to wit, $100, the moneys and goods and chattels of the said the O. L. Hinds Company,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stratford
...Criminal Evidence, 10th ed., vol. 1, sec. 39; 19 Cyc. 443; Elliott on Evidence, vol. 4, sec. 2976; 8 R. C. L. 205, sec. 199; State v. Marshall, 77 Vt. 262, 59 A. 916.) general rule is well established and is recognized in this jurisdiction that upon trial for felony the prosecution will not......
-
State v. Jost
...the crime is accomplished. Adams v. People, 1 N.Y. 173; Rex v. Brisae, 4 East 164, 8 Eng.Rul. Cas. 138, 144. See also State v. Marshall, 77 Vt. 262, 270, 59 A. 916 and annotation 42 A.L.R. This jurisdictional concept applies in the law of criminal libel. In the absence of statutory provisio......
-
State v. Mrs. Antonio Donaluzzi
... ... 80, ... 58 A. 971; State v. Eastwood, 73 Vt. 205, ... 50 A. 1077; State v. Valwell, 66 Vt. 558, ... 29 A. 1018; State v. Kelley, supra. As ... showing a common plan, scheme, or system: State v ... Krinski, 78 Vt. 162, 62 A. 37; State v ... Barr, 78 Vt. 97, 62 A. 43; State v ... Marshall, 77 Vt. 262, 59 A. 916; State v ... Smalley, 50 Vt. 736. As tending to illustrate, ... characterize, or explain the act in question: State ... v. Grace, 86 Vt. 470, 86 A. 162; State v ... Krinski, supra; State v ... Bean, 77 Vt. 384, 60 A. 807; State v ... Marshall, supra; State v ... ...
-
State v. Donaluzzi
...As showing a common plan, scheme, or system: State v. Krinski, 78 Vt 162, 62 Atl. 37; State v. Barr, 78 Vt. 97, 62 Atl. 43; State v. Marshall, 77 Vt. 262, 59 Atl. 916; State v. Smalley, 50 Vt. 736. As tending to illustrate, characterize, or explain the act in question: State v. Grace, 86 Vt......