State v. Ruwwe

• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23014.,23014.
• Citation: 242 S.W. 936
• Parties: STATE v. RUWWE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

242 S.W. 936

STATE v. RUWWE.

No. 23014.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 8, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gasconade County; R. A. Breuer, Judge.

W. E. Ruwwe was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses, and appeals. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.

On January 10, 1921, the prosecuting attorney of Gasconade county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county an information in two counts charging defendant with having obtained, on the day of March, 1920, the signature of one T. B. Matthews, the prosecuting witness herein, to a note, etc. At the conclusion of the state's evidence, the respondent herein was required to elect as to whether it would stand upon the first or second count of said information, and in open court said prosecuting attorney elected to stand upon the second count of said information, which reads as follows:

"J. W. Hensley, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Gasconade, in the state of Missouri, further informs the court, upon the sworn complaint of T. B. Matthews, that on the day of March, 1920, at the county of Gasconade, in the state of Missouri, one W. E. Ruwwe feloniously, knowingly, and designedly, with the intent to cheat and defraud one T. B. Matthews out of a large sum of money, to wit, $1,800 lawful money, by procuring the signature of the said T. B. Matthews on a certain promissory note, dated on the 1st day of March, 1920, payable 30 days after date of said note, the principal sum of which said note was $1,800, to the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Owensville, in said county, did then and there fraudulently, feloniously, knowingly, and designedly pretend and represent to the said T. B. Matthews that he, the said W. E. Ruwwe, was then and there the owner of a one-sixth interest in a certain valuable farm in Gasconade county, Mo., and that he, the said W. E. Ruwwe, had sold his interest in said farm to one George Klaeger, and would make deeds and deliver same to said George Klaeger within 10 days from the date of said note, and that the said George Klaeger would then take up said note and pay it in full to the said bank; and the said T. B. Matthews, relying upon said false and fraudulent representations, signed said note, and at the maturity of the said note the said T. B. Matthews and another surety were forced to, and did pay said $1,800 to said bank; that, by virtue of the false and fraudulent representations made as aforesaid, the said W. E. Ruwwe did then and there feloniously, knowingly, and designedly obtain from the said bank, by the means aforesaid, the sum of $1,800, as aforesaid, with the felonious intent then and there to cheat and defraud the said T. B. Matthews of the same, and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said W. E. Ruwwe, had not then and there sold his interest in said farm to the said George Klaeger, as he then and there well knew, and that said pretense was wholly false and untrue, against the peace and dignity of the state.

"J. W. Hensley, Prosecuting Attorney."

On January 11 defendant filed a motion to quash said information, which in substance charges the following: (1) That said information does not contain facts sufficient to charge defendant with a crime under the laws of this state; (2) because the acts and representations complained of are not charged to have been made with a felonious intent; (3) because the information is vague, uncertain, and does not inform defendant of the accusation against him; (4) because the information on its face does not disclose what defendant is charged with obtaining from the prosecuting witness.

The motion to quash the information was overruled, and a proper exception saved. Defendant was thereupon formally arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty. On May 9, 1921, upon a trial before the jury the following verdict was returned:

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the second count of the information, and assess his punishment at two years in the penitentiary."

Defendant in due time filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled, and after sentence and judgment defendant duly appealed to this court.

Such other matters as may be deemed important will be considered in the opinion.

W. L. Cole, of Union, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Albert Miller and R. W. Otto, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

RAILEY, C.

(after stating the facts as above). 1. Defendant prior to his trial filed a motion to quash the information herein, for the alleged reason that it failed to charge him with any criminal offense under the laws of this state. Said motion was overruled, and an exception duly saved as to said ruling. Defendant again challenged the sufficiency of said information by his motion in arrest of judgment, and in his brief here, insists that the second count of the Information upon which he was tried fails to charge him with a criminal offense.

The Attorney General and his assistants, in briefing the case, confess error as follows:

"After a careful examination of the information filed in this cause, we have reached the...