State v. Switser
| Decision Date | 05 October 1891 |
| Citation | 22 A. 724,63 Vt. 604 |
| Parties | STATE v. SWITZER |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
MAY TERM, 1891
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Bates & May, for the respondent.
The statute under which the respondent stands indicted imposes a penalty upon any one who designedly by false pretences, with intent to defraud, obtains from another person, money, or other property, or the signature to any instrument the false making of which would be punishable as forgery. It is insisted that each count is bad. There are fourteen in number. It is claimed that it should be alleged that the pretences were made feloniously. The statute, R. L s. 4154, creates and defines the offense and an indictment in the words of the statute, properly setting forth the pretences and alleging their falsity is sufficient; it need not be averred that the pretences were feloniously made. See State v. Daley, 41 Vt. 564. It is further claimed that the pretences are not within the statute; that they relate to acts to be performed in the future; statements of something to take place in the future, i. e. that six men named were to pay the debts of the respondent at some subsequent time. We think in making this claim the counsel misconceive the purport of the allegations, which is, that the persons named, had in the past, entered into arrangement and agreement to furnish money to pay the respondent's debts; a representation of an existing fact which would bring about a future result. In falsely pretending that such an arrangement and agreement had already been made, the respondent, in that respect, brought himself directly within the statute. In re Greenough, 31 Vt. 279. It is next claimed that the false pretences were not such as to mislead a man of ordinary prudence. This question cannot be raised upon demurrer, for if the rule is, as claimed by the respondent's counsel whether the pretences were calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence would be a question to be submitted to the jury under all the circumstances of the case.
An objection is made to certain counts that it is not alleged that the signatures, or money, therein named were obtained designedly. The obtaining, to constitute an offense, must be designedly, and for want of such an allegation counts one, three, four, eight and twelve are insufficient.
It is sufficiently alleged that the signatures and money were obtained by means of false pretences. The acts of the respondent are properly described as "false pretences," and further describing them as "inducements," "representations," and "sayings," does not render the count defective. Describing the acts in the language of the statute is...
To continue reading
Request your trial