State v. Williams
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Citation | 69 S.E. 474,68 W.Va. 86 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1910 |
69 S.E. 474
(68 W.Va. 86)
STATE
v.
WILLIAMS.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Nov. 1, 1910.
1. False Pretenses (§ 26*)—Prosecution-Indictment.
Under a count for simple larceny, it is admissible to prove that the property was obtained by false pretense with intent to defraud.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see False Pretenses, Dec. Dig. § 26.*]
2. Larceny (§ 14*)—Obtaining Property by False Pretenses with Intent to Defraud —Elements of Defense.
One who obtains possession of property upon the pretense of buying it for cash, at an agreed price, for the purpose of the payment of a just debt then due by the owner, equal to, or greater in amount than, the price of the property, is not guilty of a statutory crime.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. $§ 34-38; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
3. Larceny (§ 14*)—Obtaining Property by False Pretenses with Intent to Defraud.
The procuring of the payment of a just debt already due, by false pretenses, is not an indictable offense.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 34-38; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
Error from Circuit Court, Braxton County. Ab Williams was convicted of larceny, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Morrison & Rider and C. W. Flesher, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. G. Conley, Atty. Gen., for the State.
WILLIAMS, J. Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Braxton county on an indictment for the larceny of a cow worth $27, the property of one J. F. Combs, and sentenced to an indefinite term in the penitentiary, and brings error.
The proof shows that defendant got possession of the cow by going to Combs' house in the country and representing to him that he was sent to buy her for one Holcomb, a butcher, whose agent defendant claimed to be, and to whom Combs had before that time talked of selling her. They agreed on a price of $27.50, which defendant said would be satisfactory to Holcomb. Defendant then said he did not have any money with him, and Combs consented to go with him to the town of Sutton to get it, and assisted defendant in leading the cow to town. When they arrived, defendant put the cow in the stable of one Frank Frame, and, instead of paying him the money, presented to Combs a judgment in favor of said Frame against Combs for $50, which had been assigned to defendant. The judgment was subject to a credit of $7, and admittedly just; but Combs refused to let the cow go in payment of it. He, however, proposed to defendant that, if he would pay him $15 in cash, the balance of the value of the cow might be applied to the judgment; but de-
[69 S.E. 475]fendant declined the proposition. Combs then brought an action of detinue, gave bond, and regained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goldstrohm, (No. 3662.)
...with intent to defraud (State v. Halida, supra; State v. Edwards, 51 W. Va. 220, 229, 41 S. E. 429, 59 L. R. A. 465; State v. Williams, 68 W. Va. 86, 69 S. E. 474, 32 L. R. A. UN. S.] 420); or under section 19, c. 145, Code (sec. 5210) and the proof shows embezzlement by defendant of the pr......
-
State v. West, 13037
...proof that the property, alleged to have been stolen, was in fact obtained by false pretenses, with intent to defraud, State v. Williams, 68 W.Va. 86, 69 S.E. 474 (1910), and under a count for simple larceny it is admissible to prove that the property was obtained by false pretenses, with i......
-
Vaughan v. Lytton
...v. Williams, 95 Mo. 247, 8 S. W. 217, 6 Am. St. Rep. 46; Lancaster v. State, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 339, 91 Am. Dec. 288; State v. Williams, 68 W. Va. 86, 69 S. E. 474, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 420 (principal case and note thereto); Fanin v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 100 S. W. 916, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) ......
-
State v. Lewis
...intent to defraud; and (c) em bezzlement. Any one of these may be proven under a single count for common-law larceny. State v. Williams, 68 W. Va. 86, 69 S. E. 474, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 420, and cases cited in the opinion. Defendant knew this, because every one is presumed to know the law. W......