State v. Woerth

Decision Date03 December 1923
Docket NumberNo. 24232.,24232.
Citation256 S.W. 456
PartiesSTATE v. WOERTH.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.

Paul G. Woerth was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Sheppard & Sheppard, of Poplar Bluff, and Jos. F. Lindsay, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Henry Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Statement.

BAILEY, C.

On December 27, 1921, the prosecuting attorney of Butler county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county an information, which, omitting the description of the lands described therein, and the signature thereto, reads as follows:

"That on or about the _______ day of February, A. D. 1919, at the county of Butler in the state of Missouri, the defendant, Paul G. Woerth, feloniously and designedly, with the intent to cheat and defraud one Frank A. Guinn, did falsely represent and pretend to the said Frank A. Guinn that he, the said Paul G. Woerth, and W. B. Hays constituted a copartnership, doing business under the firm name and style of Union Farm Land Company, and that the said Union Farm Land Company was then and there the owner of (certain lands) all of the above-described property, being real estate which the said Paul G. Woerth then and there represented to the said Frank A. Guinn to be of the value of $30,000, a one-third interest in all of which and in the said Union Farm Land Company he desired to sell, and that he had a right to sell and could pass good title to (the said lands) to the said Frank A. Guinn; and the said Frank A. Guinn believing said false representations and pretenses so made as aforesaid to be true, and being deceived thereby, and relying thereon, was by the false pretenses and representations so made as aforesaid induced to and did enter into a contract with the said Paul G. Woerth to purchase a one-third interest in said lands and in the said Union Farm Land Company, at and for the price of $10,000, which said sum of $10,000 the said Frank A. Guinn, by his certain check for the sum of $1,500, of the value of $1,500, and his certain check for the sum of $2,500, of the value of $2,500, and his certain check for the sum of $6,000, of the value of $6,000, all of the aggregate value of $10,000, did then and there pay to the said Paul G. Woerth, on said contract for the purchase of said interest in and to said lands and said Union Farm Land Company, which said checks of said value the said Paul G. Woerth did then and there present and cash for the said sum of $10,000, and the said Paul G. Woerth, the said $10,000, of the money and property of the said Frank A. Guinn, by means of the said false pretenses and representations aforesaid, designedly and feloniously did then and there obtain and receive of and from the said Frank A. Guinn, with the intent, him, the said Frank A. Guinn, then and there to cheat and defraud of the same; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Union Farm Land Company had never been nor was then the owner of the (certain lands), all of the aggregate value of $30,000, nor of any other value, nor of any other land or real estate in Butler or Stoddard counties, in the state of Missouri, or elsewhere and had no right to sell a one-third interest in and to said lands in any manner whatever, which he, the said Paul G. Woerth, then and there well knew and understood, against the peace and dignity of the state."

Defendant was duly arraigned, entered his plea of not guilty, was tried before a jury and on April 11, 1922, the following verdict was returned:

"We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and the jury cannot agree on the term of punishment.

                                   "J. R. Nentrup, Foreman."
                

Timely motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed, overruled, sentence pronounced in accordance with the verdict, and defendant's punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. Judgment was entered in due form, and from which appellant appealed to this court.

The evidence tends to show that the prosecuting witness, Frank A. Guinn, met appellant on January 19, 1919, and purchased, through the Union Farm Land Company, a farm of John Fletcher, near Essex, Mo., for the sum of $33,000, upon which he made a payment of $1,500 by check, which was addressed to the Boone County Trust Company, directing the latter to pay the Union Farm Land Company, or bearer, $1,500, which was paid January 31, 1919. It was indorsed as follows: "Union Farm Land Co., per Paul G. Woerth." About six or seven days before Guinn bought the Fletcher land supra, he met appellant at the Maryland Hotel, in St. Louis, Mo., and appellant proposed to sell him a third interest in certain real estate owned by the Union Farm Land Company, in Butler and Stoddard counties, Mo., and also a third interest in the Union Farm Land Company, and Guinn was to be a one-third partner of the real estate holdings of said company. No definite arrangement was then made at St. Louis, but Guinn returned to Columbia, Mo., and, on February 10, 1919, came to Poplar Bluff and, at the office of said Union Farm Land Company located there, discussed said subject with "appellant, and W. B. Hays, partner of the latter. Guinn testified that appellant then said, "they owned about 800 acres of land in Stoddard and Butler counties, and he would sell a one-third interest in that land, and a one-third interest in the office and office fixtures for $10,000; he represented it as being a good business, that it would be a good opportunity to make plenty of money." Over appellant's objection, Guinn was then permitted to testify that appellant told him said 800 acres was worth $30,000.

As a result of said conference at Poplar Bluff, on February 11, 1919, a written contract as then entered into between W. B. Hays, P. Woerth, and F. A. Guinn, which reads as follows:

"This agreement made and entered into this 11th day of February, nineteen hundred and nineteen, by and between W. 3. Hays and Paul G. Woerth and Frank A. Guinn.

"The said W. B. Hays and Paul G. Woerth, doing business under the name of Union Farm Land Company, located in Poplar Bluff, Mo., hereby agree and by these presents do sell to the said Frank A. Guinn a third interest in the Union Farm Land Company for the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

"The said Frank A. Guinn is to share in all the profits derived from said business, is also to share in all the sale contracts that are now made. Also a third interest in lands now owned and controlled by the said W. B. Hays and Paul G. Woerth, more specifically set forth as follows:

"A one-third interest in the south half of the northeast quarter and the north half of the southeast quarter of section 17, township 23, range 6; also the east half and the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 25, township 24, range 6; also the south half of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 33, township 24, range 6; also the southwest quarter of section 27, township 22, range 5 east, containing 167 acres. All the before enumerated places located in Butler county, Missouri; also the east half of the northwest quarter and the west half of the northeast quarter of section 21, township 25, range 11, and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, and the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 3...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Mandell
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1944
    ... ... Jabluosky, 169 Mo.App. 328, 152 S.W. 390; State v ... Preslar, 316 Mo. 144, 290 S.W. 142; State v ... Collins, 297 Mo. 257, 248 S.W. 599; 22 C.J.S. 416. (10) ... There was a material variance and failure of proof. State ... v. Smalley, 252 S.W. 443; State v. Woerth, 256 ... S.W. 456; State v. Zingher, 302 Mo. 650, 259 S.W ... 451. (11) The court erred in giving Instruction 2 because ... said instruction assumed facts which were not in evidence; ... further, that said instruction was broader than the evidence, ... and that said instruction submitted ... ...
  • Sullivan v. Morton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1935
    ...therein do not constitute a crime. State v. Willard, 109 Mo. 242; State v. Kelly, 170 Mo. 151; State v. Schaeffer, 89 Mo. 271; State v. Woerth, 256 S.W. 456; State v. O'Brien, 265 Mo. 594. (a) It permitted the jury to conjecture as to what constituted "material facts." Anderson v. Pike, 86 ......
  • Sullivan v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1935
    ... ... malice on the part of defendant. (2) The facts hypothesized ... therein do not constitute a crime. State v. Willard, ... 109 Mo. 242; State v. Kelly, 170 Mo. 151; State ... v. Schaeffer, 89 Mo. 271; State v. Woerth, 256 ... S.W. 456; State v ... ...
  • State v. Patton, 46069
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1958
    ...Mo. 393, 234 S.W.2d 777, 782; State v. Hicks, 326 Mo. 1056, 33 S.W.2d 923, 926; State v. Rawson, Mo., 259 S.W. 421, 422; State v. Woerth, Mo., 256 S.W. 456, 459[2, 3]; State v. Johnson, Mo., 225 S.W. 961, 965; State v. Griffin, 278 Mo. 436, 212 S.W. 877, 878; State v. Winer, 263 Mo. 356, 17......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT