State v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 10 October 1902
• Citation: 69 S.W. 970,109 Tenn. 157
• Parties: STATE v. MORGAN.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

69 S.W. 970

109 Tenn. 157

STATE v. MORGAN.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 10, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Hamilton county; W. T. Smith, Judge.

I. C Morgan was indicted for obtaining property under false pretenses and for larceny. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Reversed.

Charles T. Cates, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

Murray Murray & Peak, for appellee.

NEIL J.

The defendant was charged in the circuit court of Hamilton county, under an indictment containing two counts,--one for obtaining county warrant No. 41,311, of that county, under certain false pretenses; and the other for larceny of the same warrant on the -- day of May, 1900. His honor the circuit judge quashed the indictment, and the state appealed in error.

The first count may be analyzed as follows: (1) The averment as to the pretense is that the defendant, a constable of Hamilton county, represented to the county that he, as such constable, was entitled to Hamilton county warrants from the county, of the value of $165, for services rendered as constable for the county in small-offense cases submitted by defendants in state causes, and tried by and before Robert Wallace, a justice of the peace of Hamilton county. (2) The averment upon the point of the false and fraudulent character of these pretended bills of cost--that is, the negativing of the truth of the pretenses and the defendant's knowledge of their falsity--is as follows: "The said I. C. Morgan constable aforesaid, was legally entitled to Hamilton county warrants of the value of forty-eight dollars, of good and lawful money of the United States, upon legitimate cases where the defendants were legally tried and submitted under the small-offense law by and before Robert Wallace, justice of the peace, aforesaid; but he was not entitled to receive from Hamilton county Hamilton county warrants of the value of one hundred and sixty-five dollars, of good and lawful money of the United States, and this the said I. C. Morgan well knew. On the day aforesaid the said I. C. Morgan, constable, drew from Hamilton county Hamilton county warrant No. 41,311, which warrant included and was for costs taxed in favor of and to the favor of I. C. Morgan upon false, fraudulent, forged, and illegal bills of cost to the amount of one hundred and seventeen dollars, of good and lawful money of the United States, and also legal costs taxed to the credit of said I. C. Morgan to the amount and of the value of forty-eight dollars, to which the said I. C. Morgan was entitled." It is thus perceived these bills of cost amounting to $165 (less $48, of lawful costs) are averred to have been "false, fraudulent, forged, and illegal," and they are subsequently characterized in the indictment as "false pretenses." (3) As to the fraudulent intent, the averments are that he "did unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, fraudulently, and falsely represent to Hamilton county that he, as such constable, was entitled," etc., "which false, felonious, and fraudulent representations the said I. C. Morgan well knew, at the time he made them, that they were false, and made for the purpose of deceiving and obtaining from Hamilton county the following personal property, to wit," etc. Again: "The said I. C. Morgan well knew he was entitled to Hamilton county warrants only to the value of forty-eight dollars, and he did obtain the property aforesaid under false pretenses." (4) The averment as to the property obtained is that it consisted of "Hamilton county warrants of the value of one hundred and sixty-five dollars"; and again, "Hamilton county warrant No. 41,311, *** of the value of one hundred and sixty-five dollars." (5) As to the reliance of Hamilton county on the said fraudulent pretenses, and defendant's procurement of the county warrant thereby, the averment is: "And by reason of the said unlawful, felonious, false, and fraudulent representations, and said illegal, false, and fraudulent bills of costs, the said I. C. Morgan did, on the day aforesaid, and in the county aforesaid, become possessed of said personal property, the property of Hamilton country, which he, the said I. C. Morgan, unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently converted to his own use."

The indictment is very inartificially drawn, all of the several elements above mentioned being mixed together, and several of them being repeated; but we think it is clearly sufficient as to the points 2, 3, 4, and 5. The only question, in our judgment, is whether the false pretense is sufficiently stated. This may be regarded from three standpoints, and is in our judgment, sufficiently definite from either one. It may be said that the false pretense consisted in Morgan's representing to the county that he was entitled to $165 in warrants for services performed by him as constable in small-offense cases tried before Robert Wallace, justice of the peace, when in fact he was entitled to only $48 in warrants for services performed. The pretense here would be...