State v. Saunders
| Decision Date | 31 October 1876 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. DANIEL E. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cooper Circuit Court.
Hockaday, Att'y Gen'l, for Defendant in Error.
The indictment was sufficient. James B. Gantt, for Plaintiff in Error.
I. The judgment should have been arrested, the indictment is bad. (Comm. vs. Strain, 10 Metc. 521; State vs. Bonnell, 46 Mo. 395; Comm. vs. Abbey Goddard, 4 Allen, 312; Comm. vs. Lannan, 1 Allen, 590; State vs. Philbrick, 31 Me. 401; People vs. Gates, 13 Wend. 311; State vs. Green, 7 Wis. 676; Dillingham vs. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Comm. vs. Drew, 19 Pick. 179; State vs. Johnson, 11 Ind., 481, 482.)
This case was an indictment found under the forty-seventh section of Wagn. Stat., 461 for obtaining money under color of a false token, writing and account, and false pretenses.
The cause originated in the circuit court of Pettis County, and was, by change of venue, transferred to the circuit court of Cooper County, in which court it was tried and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
During the progress of the trial, various exceptions were taken to the admissibility of evidence, the giving and refusing of instructions, and the overruling of motions for new trial, and in arrest of judgment. The case is brought here for review by writ of error, and this court is asked to reverse the judgment on the grounds of the insufficiency of the indictment and alleged errors committed in admitting evidence and refusing and giving instructions.
The indictment alleges in substance that defendant, with intent to cheat and defraud one Sullivan of his money, did falsely pretend, by color of a certain false token, writing and account, which he held against one Marshall for the sum of $300, and the false representations made to said Sullivan, that defendant had loaned to said Marshall, who was solvent, $300, which was still due; that defendant still held said account; that it was good and collectible, and that defendant could and would assign said account to Sullivan for $200; that Sullivan believing such representations and pretenses to be true, and confiding in them, parted with the sum of $200; that all of said representations and pretenses were false; that the account was not a true, good and collectible account, as defendant knew, and that by color of said false token, writing and account, and by reason of said false pretenses, the said defendant did feloniously obtain from said Sullivan the sum of $200.
The record shows that this cause was tried on the theory that defendant sold and assigned to Sullivan for $200, an account for $300 against one Marshall, and that the account was represented to be a good, true, and collectible account, when in fact, it was false and fraudulent. On the trial the prosecuting witness Sullivan was permitted to testify that he bought the account of defendant and paid therefor two hundred dollars, and that defendant assigned and delivered the same to him.
The court also in the first instruction, which was given on behalf of the State, required the jury to find, as a pre-requisite to the conviction of defendant, that Sullivan believed that said account was good and collectible, and that said representations and pretenses were true, and that relying upon them he was deceived thereby and was induced to buy said account and pay and give to the defendant therefor the sum of $200.
It appears therefore, that both in the judgment of the trial court and the prosecutor, it was necessary for the State to prove and the jury to find that the account was purchased by Sullivan of defendant, and that payment was made therefor before the defendant could be convicted.
If these were necessary facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Meysenburg
...that defendant had done any act in the past or promised to do any act in the future, in consideration of what he had received. [State v. Saunders, 63 Mo. 482; v. Phelan, 159 Mo. 122, 60 S.W. 71.] How, then, do defendant's alleged acts amount to bribery either at common law or to accepting a......
-
State v. Bowdry
...and the payment of money, without setting forth the acts done which induced and caused the payment, is fatally defective. State v. Saunders, 63 Mo. 482; State v. Bonnell, 46 Mo. 395; State Block, 62 S.W.2d 428; State v. Barbee, 136 Mo. 440, 37 S.W. 1119. (a) The indictment is vague, indefin......
-
The State v. Foley
...averment lacking. [Consult State v. Phelan, 159 Mo. 122, 60 S.W. 71; State v. Hubbard, 170 Mo. 346, 70 S.W. 883; State v. Saunders, 63 Mo. 482; State v. Kelly, 170 Mo. 151, 70 S.W. 477; State v. Vandenburg, 159 Mo. 230, 60 S.W. 79; State v. Clay, 100 Mo. 571, 13 S.W. 827; State v. Feazell, ......
-
State v. Meysenburg
...that defendant had done any act in the past, or promised to do any act in the future, in consideration of what he had received. State v. Saunders, 63 Mo. 482; State v. Phelan, 119 Mo. 122, 60 S. W. 71. How, then, do defendant's alleged acts amount to bribery, either at common law, or to acc......