State v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 15 December 1919
• Docket Number: 15489.
• Citation: 109 Wash. 25,186 P. 264
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. PETERSON.

186 P. 264

109 Wash. 25

STATE v. PETERSON.

No. 15489.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 15, 1919

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith, Judge.

Inez Peterson was convicted of an attempt to commit larceny by false pretenses, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Howard O. Durk, of Seattle, for appellant.

Fred C Brown and John A. Frater, both of Seattle, for the State.

FULLERTON J.

The appellant was accused by information of the crime of larceny and upon a trial before a jury was convicted of an attempt to commit the crime of larceny. From the judgment and sentence pronounced upon the verdict she appeals.

The evidence tended to show the following facts: On December 24 1918, some woman called by telephone the merchandise store of McDougall & Southwick in the city of Seattle, and representing herself to be Mrs. Edgar Ames, a person whom the employés of the store knew to be the wife of a member of a shipbuilding company of the city named and a credit customer of the store, stated that she desired to purchase and have sent to the wife of a sick employé of the shipbuilding company certain merchandise as a Christmas present. She further stated that the person for whom the goods were intended lived out of the city of Seattle near the town of Kent, and inquired whether delivery could be made to her there. She was informed that the delivery wagons of the store did not go to Kent, but as a special favor to her, if she desired it, a wagon would be sent out to make the delivery on Christmas morning. The woman speaking then said that there was a Miss Ellenberger employed in the office of the shipbuilding company who lived at Kent, and that she thought possibly she might induce her to take the package out to Kent, and would call the store up later and let them know. She then inquired the name of the person speaking, and being given the name, closed the telephone. Later on she again called the store and inquired for the person with whom she had previously talked. On being put in communication with him she informed him that Miss Ellenberger had consented to take the package and would receive it at the interurban depot at 4 o'clock. The person answering for the store was the superintendent, and he desired her to give the place and number of the telephone at which she then was, also her home address, saying he would later put her in communication with the mail order department of the store, from which her order could be more conveniently given attention. She gave her then location as the Y. M. C. A. building, the telephone number of the place from which she was speaking, and the telephone number of her home, but stated that she objected to waiting, as she was very busy and desired to give the order immediately. The superintendent at once recognized that the numbers given were not the numbers of the telephones at the places indicated, but nevertheless put her in communication with another employé of the store, where an order was given for merchandise appropriate for women's wear amounting to $26.10. Both the superintendent and the employé taking the order reached the conclusion that it was not Mrs. Ames who had given the order, and later on Mrs. Ames was called, when the fact was positively ascertained. The goods ordered were packed, and at the appropriate time sent to the depot named by a young...