State v. Scott, 41780
| Decision Date | 13 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 41780,No. 1,41780,1 |
| Citation | 230 S.W.2d 764 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCOTT |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
E. L. Redman, Albany, for appellant.
J. E. Taylor, Attorney General, Julian L. O'Malley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Defendant-appellant, John A. Scott, was convicted of obtaining money, with intent to cheat and defraud, by giving a check drawn upon a bank in which he knew he had no funds, in violation of Rev.Stat.Mo.1939, Sec. 4694, Mo.R.S.A. Upon the jury's verdict he was sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. He thereupon appealed.
In the above statute it is provided that, 'Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain * * * from any other person * * * any money * * * by means of a check drawn * * * on a bank in which the drawer of the check knows he has no funds * * * shall be deemed guilty of a felony', and upon conviction be punished by imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
The information charged that in Gentry County, Missouri, with intent to cheat and defraud, defendant obtained $4 from G. M. Silvers by giving the latter a check for $4 drawn upon the First State Bank of Leoti, Kansas, in which bank defendant well knew 'he had no account' for the payment of said check; that defendant represented that he had money in said bank subject to the check and that Silvers believed such representation to be true and relied thereon. In the briefs filed by the Attorney General and by defendant it is conceded that the prosecution was under Sec. 4694.
The evidence established that Mr. Silvers (a filling station operator in King City, Missouri) loaned defendant $1.50; that later defendant asked Silvers to cash defendant's check for $4 drawn upon the First State Bank of Leoti, Kansas; that Silvers did so and accepted from defendant the check, signed by defendant, for that sum on the above bank and gave defendant $2.50; that before Silvers cashed defendant's $4 check defendant said to Silvers: 'I know I have eighteen dollars in the Leota Bank, I would not want to give a check without the money there and it is there * * * I would not give a check that wasn't good'; that Silvers later deposited defendant's $4 check in his (Silvers') account for collection in his own local bank in King City; that defendant's check thereafter, by mail, was returned uncollected to Silvers by his local bank; that Silvers' own account in his local bank was charged with the $4; that when the check was returned to Silvers, written on the bottom of the check with a red pencil were the words: 'No Acct.' It was upon defendant's representation that defendant had the money in the Leoti bank that Silvers accepted defendant's check and gave defendant the money.
Defendant did not testify. The above is all that appears in the evidence in this case as to whether there was, in fact, a First State Bank of Leoti, Kansas; whether defendant had any funds in such a bank, or if he did, the status of such account; and whether defendant knew he had any funds in such a bank. There was no evidence as to why the $4 check signed by defendant and cashed by Silvers was not honored and paid. Defendant called his brother-in-law, L. B. Worford, of Wichita, Kansas, as his only witness. The latter gave no testimony upon any matter which is pertinent to any question upon this appeal.
At the close of all the evidence defendant requested an instruction that under the law and the evidence the jury should find defendant not guilty. The refusal of that instruction in the nature of a demurrer to all the evidence is assigned as error.
Other parts of this statute, than that above quoted, have often been before this court in prosecutions for false pretenses. See, 13 Mo.R.S.A., pages 945 to 957. This section of the statute, as it existed in 1909, see, R.S.Mo.1909, Sec. 4765, was amended in 1913, see Laws Mo.1913, p. 222, by the addition of the words, 'or by means of a check drawn, with intent to cheat and defraud, on a bank in which the drawer of the check knows he has no funds, or by means, or by use, of any corporation stock or bonds.' We do not find that the statute has been amended since 1913.
We agree with the Attorney General that while Sec. 4694 provides that the obtaining of money, property or other valuable thing by other methods (i. e., trick or deception, artifice and confidence game) is also prohibited by that section and made a felony, that under this information the State had to prove that defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hartman
...under Sec. 561.450. The information need contain only sufficient allegations to charge one of the statutory prohibited acts. State v. Scott, Mo., 230 S.W.2d 764, 766. The gist of the instant charge was obtaining the property of another by means of a false or bogus check with intent to cheat......
-
State v. Friedman
...offense under Section 561.450. Since the latter section specifies and prohibits various methods of cheating and defrauding, State v. Scott, Mo., 230 S.W.2d 764, with only one of which we are here concerned, defendant's query should be restated and restricted to the issue of whether the offe......
-
State v. Williams, 42521
...for finding by the jury must have evidentiary support. In the absence of such support, the instruction is erroneous. State v. Scott, 230 S.W.2d 764 (Mo.1950) (6, 7); State v. Dayton, 535 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.App.1976) (22). However, the departure or variance between proof and instruction must be ......
-
State v. Dunlap
...of Section 561.450, V.A.M.S., could not be convicted where the proof showed only the giving of an insufficient-funds check; State v. Scott, Mo., 230 S.W.2d 764, held that a no-funds check charge under the same statute could not be sustained without proof that defendant had no funds in his a......