State v. Sabatini
| Citation | 213 N.W. 552,171 Minn. 137 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 26006.,26006. |
| Parties | STATE v. SABATINI. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Edward Freeman, Judge.
Edward Sabatini was convicted of auditing and allowing a false claim against a town as supervisor thereof, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Gannon, Strizich & Farnand, of Hibbing, for appellant.
C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mason Forbes, County Atty., of Duluth, and Victor H. Johnson, Asst. County Atty., of Hibbing, for the State.
Defendant was one of the supervisors of the town of Stuntz, in the county of St. Louis, and was convicted of the crime of willfully, knowingly and feloniously auditing and allowing a false claim against that town in his capacity as such supervisor. He appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The evidence to prove that defendant had knowingly and fraudulently audited and allowed the false claim charged in the indictment is ample; but he contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court permitted the prosecution to present evidence that he had audited and allowed other false claims against the town.
The town of Stuntz is located on the Iron Range and includes the village of Hibbing. It seems to have been making various improvements in the construction of which it purchased considerable quantities of material and employed a number of workmen. Defendant had a dwelling house in the village of Hibbing which he remodeled and enlarged at an expense of several thousand dollars. The work was begun in the latter part of May, 1924, and extended through the month of June. The false claim set forth in the indictment is an item of $479.61 for material furnished to and used by defendant in remodeling and enlarging this building. The bill for this material was presented to the town as a claim for material furnished to the town. Defendant was a member of the finance committee of the town board, and as such approved this claim as a lawful charge against the town, and as a member of the town board took part in allowing it and causing it to be paid out of town funds.
The prosecution was permitted to present proof of two other claims for material furnished for this same building during this same period which were presented to the town board as claims against the town and were approved and allowed as such. The prosecution was also permitted to present proof that the work of reconstructing this building was performed in part by workmen in the employ of the town and that they were paid for such work by the town upon pay rolls approved and ordered paid by the town board.
The record gives in detail the facts relating to these different matters and also the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sweeney
...155 Minn. 117, 192 N. W. 737; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9, 201 N. W. 913; State v. Eames, 163 Minn. 249, 203 N. W. 769; State v. Sabatini, 171 Minn. 137, 213 N. W. 552; State v. Kiewel, 173 Minn. 473, 217 N. W. 598. A similar rule applies in civil actions involving fraud. Albrecht v. Rathai......
-
State v. Kiewel, 26349.
...538, 191 N. W. 37; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37, 192 N. W. 194; State v. Horr, 163 Minn. 141, 148, 203 N. W. 979; State v. Sabatini, 171 Minn. 137, 213 N. W. 552; State v. Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 68 N. W. 11; 16 C. J. 586, 589. This is especially true in prosecutions for embezzlement and ......
-
Robitshek Inv. Co. v. Wick, 25960.
... ... 171 Minn. 129 ... method of canceling such a contract is not exclusive. The rights of the vendee may always be terminated by action (State Bank of Milan v. Sylte, 162 Minn. 72, 202 N. W. 70), and it is argued that only by bringing a suit for that purpose could there be an extinguishment ... ...