State v. Wheeler

• Decision Date: 22 April 1918
• Docket Number: 14505.
• Citation: 172 P. 225,101 Wash. 293
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WHEELER.

172 P. 225

101 Wash. 293

STATE v. WHEELER.

No. 14505.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 22, 1918

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Geo. B. Holden Judge.

J. D Wheeler, alias J. M. Wheeler, convicted of larceny committed by color or aid of false and fraudulent representations appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. F. Bolin, of Toppenish, for appellant.

O. R. Schumann and J. Lenox Ward, both of North Yakima, for the State.

MAIN J.

The defendant was charged by information with the crime of larceny, committed by color or aid of fraudulent and false representations. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged. A motion for new trial being made and overruled, the defendant appeals.

The facts may be briefly summarized as follows: On the 29th day of August, 1916, the appellant, together with his family, was residing on a ranch in Yakima county, and on this date the appellant obtained from E. C. Young, the agent of John W. Morken, a loan of $75, and, as security therefor, gave a chattel mortgage on certain personal property. The personal property covered by the mortage, with the exception of one cow, was not owned by the appellant, but was the property of the owner of the ranch upon which he then resided. Some time thereafter, the mortgagee or his agent, having learned that the property covered by the mortgage was not that of the appellant, caused his arrest; and, after he had been formally charged with the crime of grand larceny, he was convicted, as already stated.

The appellant's principal contention is that the evidence failed to show that the $75 was obtained with criminal intent, and that therefore the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal. The statute (Rem. Code, § 2601) provides that:

'Every person who, with intent to deprive or defraud the owner thereof--* * * (2) Shall obtain from the owner or another the possession of or title to any property, * * * by color or aid of any fraudulent or false representation, * * * steals such property. * * *'

The appellant, if we understand his contention, claims that he intended to repay the money at some subsequent time, and that therefore it was not obtained with criminal intent. The money, however, was obtained from the agent of the owner by color or aid of fraudulent or false representations. The owner was deprived or defrauded thereof. The statute, as already indicated, makes one guilty of larceny who, with...