State v. Neuhart
| Decision Date | 18 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | 45063. |
| Citation | 292 N.W. 791,228 Iowa 1055 |
| Parties | STATE v. NEUHART. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; H. C. Taylor, Judge.
Defendant was indicted for the crime of cheating by false pretenses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was imposed accordingly. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ralph H. Munro, of Fairfield, for appellant.
Fred D. Everett, Atty. Gen., of Iowa, Geo. C. Van Nostrand, Co. Atty., of Fairfield, and Jens Grothe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant together with three other persons, was indicted for the crime of cheating by false pretenses. The charge, as amended, was that the accused designedly, by false pretenses, by false token and with intent to defraud, obtained from Winnifred T Ball 21 head of red white-faced cattle, which were owned by and the property of said Winnifred T. Ball, contrary to Section 13045 of the Code 1935. Trial was had, resulting in a disagreement of the jury. A petition for change of venue was overruled and a second trial had, resulting in a conviction from which this appeal is taken.
The evidence of the state showed that the defendant Neuhart induced one Van Carter to come to Fairfield to buy some cattle. The two of them went to the farm in question and negotiated with one John Riggs, who was the agent of Winnifred T. Ball and her husband, Harry I. Ball. Defendant and Riggs were acquainted with each other. Defendant introduced Van Carter as " Charles Miller" and purported to act as agent for him. The negotiations resulted in a sale of 21 cows by Riggs, acting as agent for Winnifred T. Ball, who owned the cattle, to defendant, purporting to act as agent for " Charles Miller", for the agreed sum of $1,100. Defendant, in the presence of Van Carter, delivered to Riggs a check signed by " Charles Miller" for $1,100, drawn on the Farmers Savings Bank of Marion, Iowa. Defendant assured Riggs that he had handled similar checks for " Charles Miller" and that they were good. The check was accepted and the cattle delivered. When attempt was made to cash the check, investigation revealed that there was no such bank as the Farmers Savings Bank of Marion, Iowa.
Appellant has assigned a large number of errors as the basis for reversal. In Divisions I, II and III of his argument, appellant asserts 21 assignments of error in reference to rulings of the court on the introduction of evidence. It would unduly prolong this opinion were we to undertake to even briefly pass upon the propositions asserted in such assignments of error. Suffice it to say that we have carefully considered all of them and find nothing in reference to them which would warrant a reversal.
Divisions IV, X and XI assign as error the ruling of the court on the motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of the state's evidence in chief and renewed at the close of all the evidence, which was overruled in each instance. This motion asserted that the state failed to show that the cattle were obtained from Winnifred T. Ball, failed to show that the cattle were owned by her and there was a material and fatal variance between the indictment and the proof. In ruling upon the motion, the court took the position that there was no material variance and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. We think that the court was right.
As heretofore pointed out, one pretense shown by the evidence was that defendant induced Riggs to believe that Van Carter was " Charles Miller" . This was false. That such a false pretense may be the basis for a conviction under the statute herein involved is demonstrated by our decision in the case of State v. Goble, 60 Iowa 447, 15 N.W. 272.Defendant also induced Riggs to believe that the check signed by " Charles Miller" in the sum of $1,100 was good, whereas the evidence shows that there was no such bank as the one it was purported to be drawn upon. That such a false pretense may be the basis for a charge of cheating by false pretenses is demonstrated by our decision in the case of Mulroney Mfg. Co. v. Weeks, 185 Iowa 714, 717, 171 N.W. 36.The evidence also shows, as above stated, that the cattle in fact belonged to Winnifred T. Ball and were her property, that Riggs was acting as her agent and relied upon the false pretenses of defendant, as a result of which the property of Winnifred T. Ball was wrongfully converted by defendant.
This brings us to the question whether the indictment should have stated that the property was obtained from Riggs rather than Winnifred T. Ball. We think the court was right in holding that the indictment was sufficient. The gist of the crime involved herein is ably pointed out by the opinion of Justice Weaver in the case of State v. Clark, 141 Iowa 297, 302, 119 N.W. 719, 721, wherein, speaking for the court, he states:
The foregoing language would seem to be controlling here. As there pointed out, " the gist of the offense is the felonious taking and conversion of the property of another." In this case, the evidence showed that the property belonged to Winnifred T. Ball. The gist of the offense was the felonious taking and...
To continue reading
Request your trial