State v. Scott.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 24813.,24813. |
| Citation | 256 S.W. 745,301 Mo. 409 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCOTT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.
Amos Scott was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
S. E. Garner, of St. Louis, for appellant. Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Ellison A. Poulton, of Canton, of counsel), for the State.
On January 15, 1023, the defendant, on trial before a jury in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, was found guilty of grand larceny, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. From the judgment thereupon rendered he appealed to this court.
The evidence shows that on November 13, 1922, one Lee Hill was on Washington avenue, looking into a show window. The defendant approached him and asked if he wanted to buy a suit of clothes, and Hill's evidence proceeded as follows:
* * * And he said, am a porter at Goldies on Olive street. If you will go there with me I can see the manager and get you a suit at half price.' And finally, after talking, I said, `If you can do that, I will go up there with you,' and we went to the store; and he said: And we went over there, and he went in to see the manager and was talking to him, and we looked at a suit, and he said, `You go on down and give me the money, and I will go and get the suit for you.' That was the way it was."
Hill then stated that he tried on a suit of clothes in the store; that he and the defendant went out of the store, and at the next corner Hill gave the defendant $35 in money, the defendant telling him to wait and he would bring him the suit of clothes. Accordingly, Scott went away, soon returned, handed Hill a package, and disappeared. It was raining and Hill did not open the package until he got on the street car, when he found it contained nothing but old rags. On crossexamination Hill said that he gave Scott the money with the understanding that he was to carry it to the clerk in the store; that previously, while in the store, he had said he would go outside and get a check cashed. Scott on being arrested admitted the facts as sworn to by Hill. On cross-examination of Hill, the defense endeavored to show that Scott first brought the package to Hill and exchanged it for the money, although Hill resolutely struck to his position that the money was handed to Scott first. The appellant also testified that he was intimidated and beaten by the policeman in order to get the statement which he made. No mention of that matter, however, is made in the motion for rehearing. The information was in two counts; the first count charging grand larceny, and the second count charging embezzlement. The second count was removed from consideration by instruction, and the jury found the defendant guilty of grand larceny charged in the first count.
I. Appellant's counsel argue that under the facts shown in the evidence grand larceny was not proven, but if any offense was established it was obtaining money under false pretenses—a totally different offense covered by a different statute.
The distinction between the two offenses has been very clearly and very definitely defined by this court in several cases. The character of the crime depends upon the intention of the parties. Where, by fraud or by artifice, possession of personal property is obtained with a felonious intent to convert it and to deprive the owner of it, and where the title to the property remains in the owner, the offense is larceny. If the owner is induced by artifice or fraud to part with the title, then the offense is false pretense. If the owner is induced to part with possession by means of artifice or fraud, he is deprived of his property without his consent, the same as if he had been secretly deprived of possession. State v. Anglin (Mo. Sup.) 222 S. W. 776; State v. Buck, 186 Mo. 15, loc. cit. 19, 84 S. W. 951, 2 Ann. Cas. 1007; State v. Anderson, 186 Mo. 25, loc. cit. 38, 39, 84 S. W. 946; State v. Mintz, 189 Mo. loc. cit. 283, 88 S. W. 12. In the Buck Case, 186 Mo. loc. cit. 19, 84 S. W. 952, 2 Ann. Cas. 1007, this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. January, 38973.
...sufficient to sustain a conviction for embezzlement. Sec. 4471, R.S. 1939; State v. Gould, 46 S.W. (2d) 886, 329 Mo. 828; State v. Scott, 256 S.W. 745, 301 Mo. 409; State v. Kennedy, 239 S.W. 869; State v. Gebhart, 119 S.W. 350, 219 Mo. 708; State v. Moreaux, 162 S.W. 158, 254 Mo. 398; Stat......
-
Goffe v. Natl. Surety Co.
... ... 618; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Egg Shippers, 148 Fed. 353. Second, no embezzlement of money of Dilts & Morgan by Mathews. State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 552; State v. Scott, 301 Mo. 409; State v. Smith, 250 Mo. 350; State v. Fisher, 249 S.W. 46; State v. Peck, 253 S.W. 1019; ... ...
-
Goffe v. National Sur. Co.
... ... 618; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Egg Shippers, 148 F. 353. Second, no ... embezzlement of money of Dilts & Morgan by Mathews. State ... v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 552; State v. Scott, 301 Mo ... 409; State v. Smith, 250 Mo. 350; State v ... Fisher, 249 S.W. 46; State v. Peck, ... ...
-
State v. January
... ... 482; State v ... Cochran, 80 S.W.2d 182, 336 Mo. 649. (2) Assignments of ... error, general in character, will not be considered for ... review by this court. Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v ... Kennon, 123 S.W.2d 246; State v. Dollarhide, 87 ... S.W.2d 156, 337 Mo. 962; State v. Scott, 113 S.W ... 1069, 214 Mo. 257; State v. Anno, 296 S.W. 825; ... State v. Nienaber, 148 S.W.2d 1024, 347 Mo. 615; ... State v. Kernack, 7 S.W.2d 432; State v ... Adams, 300 S.W. 738, 318 Mo. 712; State v ... Kenyon, 126 S.W.2d 245. (3) Evidence introduced by the ... State in this instance ... ...