Torbert v. People
| Decision Date | 13 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 15379. |
| Citation | Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128 (Colo. 1945) |
| Parties | TORBERT v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Joseph J Walsh, Judge.
W. R Torbert was convicted of cheating and swindling, making false pretenses, and using a confidence game, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Ralph J. Cummings, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Gail L Ireland, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen and James S. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was convicted under all three counts of an information alleging 1. cheating and swindling, 2. false pretenses, and 3. a confidence game. The trial court imposed a sentence of five to seven years. As grounds for seeking reversal in this court, plaintiff in error, whom we shall hereafter refer to as defendant, makes assignments of error which counsel for the defendant has epitomized, and counsel for the people have likewise discussed, under four headings: 1. The court should have granted defendant's motion to strike the testimony of witnesses McAfee, O'Neal, Filson, Hamilton and Dickman. 2. The trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty as to count three charging confidence game. 3. The court should not have admitted in evidence, over the objection and exception of defendant, exhibits I, J, K, and L, being prospectuses by the Savol Supply Company, a Kansas corporation. And 4. The court should not have admitted in evidence, over the objection and exception of defendant, exhibits M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T, relating to the Cokano Investment Company.
All three counts are based upon dealings which defendant had with Margaret M. Carroll in Denver, occurring on or about the 8th day of July, 1939, in which the latter exchanged her six shares of preferred stock and four shares of common stock (new) of the Cities Service Company for 103 shares of the common stock of the National Savol Company, a Colorado corporation--an exchange which was brought about by the solicitation of defendant and upon his representation that the stock had a valuation of $3.50 per share and in one or two years would be worth $5 per share. In the exchange, a valuation of $3 per share was placed upon the stock of the National Savol Company, which stock had a par value of one cent per share.
The evidence showed that defendant had organized a company in Kansas engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile accessories known as Victor Specialty Company. This company acquired a patent pertaining to a compound to be mixed with lubricating oil, which it was claimed made the oil so mixed with it a better lubricant. Shortly afterward and on or about February 24, 1927, the name of this company was changed to the Savol Supply Company. About the same time the capital stock of Savol Supply Company was tripled, and in 1930 defendant began selling stock in his company to the general public. It was in this year that he moved to Colorado, and his stock selling campaign thenceforward took place in this state--he having been formerly a resident of Colorado.
September 23, 1930, the Cokano Investment Company was organized in Colorado. July 22, 1933, this company made application to the state of Colorado for registration as a dealer in securities, reciting that up to that time it had held title to real estate and water rights; that thereafter it engaged in the sale of stock of the Savol Supply Company, building and loan companies, Cities Service, and other similar stocks. Annual applications were made for licenses thereafter, to and including 1940. Licenses were issued by the Colorado Securities Commissioner until 1940, when he refused to renew the application made that year. He testified that the chief activity of the Cokano Investment Company during this period was the sale of Savol stock.
January 3, 1939, the National Savol Company was incorporated in Colorado, with defendant as one of the three directors. One week later an exchange agreement was entered into between the Savol Supply Company of Kansas and the new Colorado corporation by which the bulk of the assets of the Kansas corporation were transferred to the Colorado company. Defendant testified that the reason for this was that two-thirds of three-fourths of his stockholders were residents of Colorado and preferred to own stock in a Colorado corporation. The testimony of Allen Redeker, a certified public accountant examining the books of the companies in question, showed that the principal assets of the Kansas company, which were taken over by the Colorado company, consisted of oil rights, formula, patents and good will which were placed at a par value of $22,905.75; notes receivable amounting to $11,160.98; furniture and fixtures $215; and printing stationery and supplies $50. The Colorado company assumed notes payable in the amount of $15,370.79 owing by the Kansas company; leaving an apparent surplus of assets over liabilities of $18,960.94, which was to be 'liquidated or settled or paid for by turning over the stock of the Savol Supply Company after they had acquired the Colorado corporation, the National Savol Company.' The auditor's comment on the various assets of the National Savol Company include the following:
The item of notes receivable entered as $11,160.98 he believed should be shown as of no value, the notes being considered worthless.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Stull v. People
...of such evidence and directing them to consider it for such purpose only. Helser v. People, 100 Colo. 371, 68 P.2d 543; Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128; Wolf v. People, 117 Colo. 321, 187 P.2d 928; Armijo v. People, 134 Colo. 344, 304 P.2d 633. In some cases no request was ma......
-
Schneider v. People
...104 Colo. 229, 90 P.2d 5; Rogers v. People, 104 Colo. 594, 94 P.2d 453; Coates v. People, 106 Colo. 483, 106 P.2d 354; Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128; Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 P.2d Williams v. People, 114 Colo. 207, 158 P.2d 447, 159 A.L.R. 509; Perry v. People, 1......
-
Gorum v. People
...intent, scheme or design. Armijo v. People, 134 Colo. 344, 304 P.2d 633; Perry v. People, 116 Colo. 440, 181 P.2d 439; Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128. The testimony objected to was to the effect that the witness Lovell together with Woods and defendant Gorum stole bits and r......
-
Davenport v. People
...if not remote in time and sufficiently connected with the crime charged, is admissible to indicate a modus operandi. Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128; Perry v. People, 116 Colo. 440, 181 P.2d 439; Armijo v. People, 134 Colo. 344, 304 P.2d The judgment is affirmed. ...