State v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 05 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 25,049 |
| Citation | 116 Kan. 449,227 P. 263 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FRANK STANLEY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1924
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; WILLIAM H MCCAMISH, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL LAW -- Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses -- Information Charges a Public Offense--Evidence Supports Conviction. In a prosecution of the accused for the offense of obtaining money with the intention to defraud another by the false pretense that he was the owner of real estate sold to the other, proof that he falsely represented and pretended that he was the owner, and did so with the intention to defraud the purchaser, and by such pretense induced the purchaser to part with his money to his loss, is sufficient to uphold a conviction, and the accused is not relieved from criminal liability by the fact that he had an option contract of purchase of the property upon which he made default if the purchaser was induced to buy the property from the accused and part with his money on the faith of the representation of ownership falsely made by the accused with the intention of defrauding the purchaser.
2. SAME. The evidence examined and held to be sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
3. SAME--No Error in Admission of Evidence or Giving of Instructions. The admission of certain evidence and the giving of certain challenged instructions examined and held to be without error.
Guy L. Hursh, of Topeka, for the appellant.
Charles B. Griffith, attorney-general, and J. N. Baird, county attorney, Harry Hayward, and David E. Henderson, assistant county attorneys, for the appellee.
Frank Stanley was charged with obtaining money under false pretenses. There was a conviction at a trial with a jury, from which he appeals.
Errors are assigned on the rulings in the admission of evidence and of the instructions given, as well as some that were refused, and the main contention is, that upon the evidence error was committed in overruling the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and grant him a new trial. The false statements and pretenses on which the charge was founded were that the defendant had represented to a purchaser that he owned certain lots on which there was a house, and had induced him to purchase the property, when in fact he did not own it, by reason of which the purchaser had lost $ 702.50, the amount paid on the purchase. It appears that on September 5, 1919, W. W. Rose was the owner of the property, and at that time gave A. W. Stubbs an option to purchase it for $ 2,200; $ 200 of that amount was paid in cash and the balance was payable in installments of $ 25 on the 5th day of each of the following months until all of the purchase price was paid. It was stipulated that the option might be extended, and there was a provision that Stubbs should not transfer his option without the consent of Rose. Stubbs made the required payments until September 30, 1920, when he executed an option contract with defendant substantially similar in terms to the one between Rose and himself, except that the purchase price agreed to be paid was $ 2,375. After the transfer to defendant, Stubbs continued to make payments to Rose, and all had been paid when this prosecution was instituted. After the transfer by Stubbs to the defendant, and on April 4, 1920, defendant contracted with F. M. Gottman, agreeing to sell him the property for the price of $ 2,600; $ 140 was paid in cash, and Gottman executed and delivered to defendant a promissory note for $ 100, due in fifty days, which was paid when the note matured. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid in monthly installments of $ 20 until full payment of the purchase price was made. Payments were made up to February 12, 1921, amounting in all to $ 702.80, when Gottman was served with a notice to vacate the property. At that time Gottman offered to pay the defendant the balance of the purchase price if he would furnish a deed conveying good title to the property, but this was not done. It appears that the defendant made no payments to Stubbs except a small sum about the time he contracted to purchase the property, and because of his defaults the Gottmans were ejected from the premises at the suit of the owners of the property.
One contention of the defendant is that when he sold the property to Gottman and had received a payment thereon, he had a valid and enforceable contract from Stubbs, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stephens
...known these representations were false.' " Thus, according to the State's argument, $57,000 was stolen. The State cites State v. Stanley, 116 Kan. 449, 227 P. 263 (1924), in support of its position that a victim's suffering a pecuniary loss is not determinative of the offense. Stanley was c......
-
State v. Aiken
...criminal character of his acts in obtaining the money by the false pretenses to which we have heretofore referred. See State v. Stanley, 116 Kan. 449, 452, 227 P. 263; State v. Holmes, 98 Kan. 174, 157 P. 412, L.R.A.1916E, 1104, also decisions cited in West's Kansas Digest, False Pretenses,......
-
State v. Jeffcoat, 21934
...failure to disclose his lack of legal title can constitute a false pretense. See State v. Johnson, 20 S.C. 387 (1883); State v. Stanley, 116 Kan. 449, 227 [279 S.C. 170] P. 263 (Kan.1924); 35 CJS, False Pretenses, § 8. We see no material variance warranting a directed Appellant Jeffcoat con......
-
Dwoskin v. State, 33815
...See Brennan v. State, supra; Hameyer v. State, 148 Neb. 798, 29 N.W.2d 458; State v. Pierson, 47 Del. 397, 91 A.2d 541; State v. Stanley, 116 Kan. 449, 227 P. 263; 22 Am.Jur., False Pretenses, § 51, p. 471. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the charge filed ......