State v. Seguin
| Decision Date | 15 December 1903 |
| Citation | 98 Me. 285,56 A. 840 |
| Parties | STATE v. SEGUIN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Edouard Seguin was indicted for cheating by false pretenses. Case reported, and indictment nol pros'd.
Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and POWERS, JJ.
W. B. Skelton, Co. Atty., for the State.
R. W. Crockett, for defendant.
This case comes up on report, under the provisions of Rev. St 1883, c. 134, § 26. Although no objection to this method of procedure has been made by counsel, yet, inasmuch as the legality or propriety of so proceeding, at least in cases of felony, has sometimes been questioned, we think it proper to say that we hold the case to be properly before us under the statute.
The respondent was indicted for a violation of Rev. St. 1883, c. 126, § 1, which, so far as it affects this case, is as follows: "Whoever knowingly, and with intent to defraud, sells, conveys, mortgages or pledges to another, personal property on which there is an existing mortgage, or to which be has no title, without notice to the purchaser, of such mortgage, or of such want of title, is guilty of cheating by false pretenses." The indictment charges, among other things, that the respondent "did * * * then and there grant, bargain and sell said building unto the said H. E. Penley." In support of this charge the state introduced evidence to show that the respondent mortgaged the building, which was personal property, to H. E. Penley. The respondent claiming that there was a variance between the allegation and the proof, the case was reported to this court with the stipulation tbat, if the indictment is sustainable, the case is to stand for trial; otherwise a nolle prosequi is to be entered.
The only question presented is whether under a statute which makes it an offense to "sell, convey, mortgage or pledge" personal property, under certain conditions, and when the indictment charges that the respondent did "grant, bargain and sell," proof of a mortgage is sufficient to sustain the allegation. We think it is not.
It is argued by the attorney for the state that a mortgage is a sale—a sale on condition; that it is a transfer of the legal title; and that, while there may be a technical distinction between the words "sells" and "mortgages" when compared with each other alone, it is impossible to make any such distinction when these words are classed with the word "conveys" in the statute, a word whose significance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martin
...some other statute. Eveleth v. Gill, 97 Me. 315, 54 A. 756. An allegation of sale was not supported by proof of a mortgage. State v. Seguin, 98 Me. 285, 56 A. 840. Allegation must be specific and accurate, that defendant may prepare to meet it. And proof must follow allegation. State v. Seg......
-
State v. Dill
...We are aware of the strictness with which this court has applied the rule that proof must conform to the indictment. In State v. Sequin, 98 Me. 285, 56 A. 840 (1903), arising under this very cheating statute, we deemed fatal the variance between an indictment alleging that defendant did 'gr......
-
Slingluff v. Dugan
... ... unintelligible or positively misleading. They asked Mr. Dugan ... upon cross-examination if he did not hear the auctioneer ... state at the sale that only those streets were opened which ... were colored upon the plat, and though he replied he heard no ... such statement, they ... ...