State v. Shaeffer

• Decision Date: 21 June 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 293,89 Mo. 271
• Parties: STATE v. SHAEFFER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W. 293

89 Mo. 271

STATE v. SHAEFFER.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 21, 1886.

1. FALSE PRETENSES — CRIME, WHERE CONSUMMATED.

The crime of obtaining money or property under false pretenses is consummated where the money or property is received, without regard to where the pretenses are made.

2. SAME — JURISDICTION — BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

In a prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, in the Missouri criminal court, against a drawer of a draft in Missouri on the bank-account of a drawee in New York, the money being collected through the agency of two other banks of New York and Missouri, respectively, it was held that the crime was not commited in Missouri, and hence the court had no jurisdiction.

3. CRIMINAL LAW — TRIAL — REASONABLE DOUBT — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.

The instruction to a jury by a lower court, in applying the rule as to reasonable doubt, to acquit the defendant "if all the facts and circumstances proven can be as reasonably reconciled with the theory that the defendant is innocent as with the theory that he is guilty," is contrary to the meaning of the term "reasonable doubt," as approved in State v. Nueslein, 25 Mo. 111, and repeatedly sanctioned by the supreme court, and was held cause for reversing the judgment on error.

Appeal from Kansas City criminal court.

B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen., for the State. J. C. V. Karnes and J. W. Bebee, for appellant, Samuel C. Shaeffer.

HENRY, C. J.

The defendant was indicted by the grand jury in the criminal court of Jackson county at the May term, 1885. The following are the charges: The first count charges that the defendant obtained a large amount of money from John I. Blair under false pretenses, the false pretenses consisting of representations to Blair that he, the defendant, had arranged with the heirs of one Anthony to purchase of them for Blair their interest in a certain tract of land, lying in Jackson county, near Kansas City; and that Blair was to have the land at the lowest price at which it could be obtained, when in fact he purchased it at one price, and represented to Blair that he had paid a large sum, and on the foregoing representation obtained from Blair more than the defendant paid to Anthony's heirs. The second count charged that the defendant was the agent of said Blair, and as such received into his possession a large sum of money, the property of said Blair, which he feloniously converted to his own use. It is not necessary to give any other attention to these two counts, the trial court having, by instruction, withdrawn from the jury all consideration of those counts, confining their inquiry to the charge in the third count, which is as follows: "And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further say and present that Samuel C. Shaeffer, at the county of Jackson, in the state of Missouri, on the _____ day of February, 1884, did unlawfully and feloniously obtain of from one John I. Blair the sum of $7,650, lawful money, of the value of $7,650, of goods, chattels, moneys, and properties of said John I. Blair, by means and by use of a cheat and a fraud, and a false and fraudulent representation, and false pretense, and false instrument, and false statement, with intent him, the said John I. Blair, then and there feloniously to cheat and defraud; contrary to the form of the statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the state." On this count the jury found him guilty, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of eight years, and defendant has prosecuted his appeal.

The evidence for the state tended to prove that the defendant made representations to Blair to the effect that he had agreed to pay to the Anthony heirs, for their interest in a tract of land near Kansas City, $8,450, having in fact purchased the same at the price of $800. The agreement between Blair and defendant, in relation to the interest of the Anthony heirs in the tract, was that Blair would place the money to make that purchase to defendant's credit in such bank at Kansas City as defendant might suggest by telegraph, or that he would pay defendant's draft at sight, at Park National Bank, New York. It appears that defendant telegraphed Blair, February 12, 1884, that he had drawn on him for $19,668.33, which sum included the $8,450 for the interest of the Anthony heirs. The draft was as follows:

                "$19,668.33.                     KANSAS CITY, Mo., February 12, 1884
                  "At sight, pay to the order of myself nineteen thousand six hundred and
                sixty-eight dollars and thirty-three hundreths dollars, with exchange, value
                received, and charge to account of                         JOHN I. BLAIR
                  "To Park National Bank, New York City
                      "S. C. SHAEFFER."
                

This was indorsed by Shaeffer to the Traders' Bank of Kansas City, which sent it for collection to the United States National Bank, New York, which collected it, and placed it to the credit of the Traders' Bank of Kansas City, which, after being informed of the payment of the draft in New York, paid the amount to Shaeffer at Kansas City.

On this state of facts the question arises, where was the offense with which the defendant is charged committed? It is no crime to make use of false pretenses, unless by means of such pretenses the party making them obtains money or property from another to which he had no right; and the crime is consummated where the money or property is received. Com. v. Van Tuyl, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 1; State v. House, 55 Iowa, 466; S. C. 8 N. W. Rep. 607; Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 415. In the latter case the substantial fact was that one Kerr, relying upon false representations of Stewart, sold the latter 12 horses which Kerr had shipped to New York, where Stewart got possession of them. Stewart was arrested in Indiana on the charge of obtaining the horses by false pretenses, and, on a preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, was adjudged guilty, and required to give security in the sum of $3,000 for his appearance in the circuit court to answer the charge. Stewart, not having given the security, was committed to jail, and, upon a writ of habeas corpus, was brought before the circuit court of Hamilton county, and, on appeal, to the supreme court of the state from a judgment of the circuit court against him. The supreme court reversed the judgment, holding that the crime was not committed in Indiana, where the false representations were made, but in the state of New York, where the property was received. Numerous decisions of that court to the same effect were cited in the opinion.

Norris v. State, 25 Ohio St. 217, is also a case analogous to the case at bar. The defendant was a resident of Clarke county, and, by fraudulent representations as to his solvency, contained in a letter, he induced the Akron Sewer-pipe Company, located in Summit county, to ship him by rail, to Clarke county, a lot of sewer-pipe. He was indicted in Clarke county, but the supreme court held that the crime was committed in Summit, and remarked that "the weight of...