Trogdon v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 05 December 1878
• Citation: Trogdon v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. 862 (1878)
• Parties: TROGDON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

72 Va. 862

TROGDON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

December 5, 1878

1. Upon the prosecution of T for obtaining goods from M &amp Co. upon false pretences, evidence that the accused, in the same city and at or about the same time, purchased goods from other parties, B and O, upon the same false pretences, is admissible to show the intent of the accused in making the representations to M & Co., but not as proof that the accused had committed other offences not charged in the indictment. And this, though the statute has made the obtaining goods on false pretences larceny.

2. A statement is made by T of his partners, and the condition of the partnership, to one of the firm of M. & Co., who encloses it in a letter to another member of his firm then in New York, and asks if he shall send the goods; and he receives a reply by telegraph to send them. The statement is admissible evidence.

3. On the 15th March, 1878, L, having received an order to send some goods to T. & Co., obtained from B a copy of the representations made to him by T on the 28th February, 1878 which were the same representations made to M. He mailed a copy to T. & Co., asking if that statement represented the true condition of their affairs? and received, by due course of mail, a letter signed T. & Co., saying that it did, and that the business was still prospering--HELD: The testimony of L, his letter to T. & Co. containing the statement, and the answer received by him, are admissible as evidence in this case to show the intent of the accused.

4. Whenever the intent or guilty knowledge of a party charged with crime is a material ingredient in the issue of the case other acts and declarations of a similar character tending to establish such intent or knowledge are proper evidence to be admitted, provided they are not too remotely connected with the offence charged; and what are the limits as to the time and circumstances is for the court, in its discretion, to determine.

5. Although under the statute of Virginia the obtaining goods by false pretences is made larceny, and an indictment under the same for larceny is sufficient; yet every ingredient entering into the offence of obtaining goods by false pretences must be shown as fully as if the statute had not thus passed.

6. On the 1st of April, 1878, T., the accused, filed his petition in the bankrupt court to have the concern of T. & Co. composed of himself, C. L. T. and J. W. A., adjudicated bankrupts, and they were so adjudicated on the 26th April 1878. In the petitions and schedules filed by T. in this bankrupt record, different representations were made as to the affairs of the concern of T. & Co. on the 28th February, 1878, when the offence was alleged to have been committed, from those stated by him in some of the representations made to M. & Co. The whole record of the bankrupt court was offered in evidence by the Commonwealth, to which the accused, by counsel, objected generally, without pointing out any part of the record as objectionable. The court below admitted the whole record--HELD: It was not error under the circumstances to do so. The statements contained in the petition and schedules in that record, made by the accused, were admissible as admissions or declarations of the facts therein stated, and while the schedules and statements made by the other partners are not evidence against the accused, he cannot by a general objection to the whole record impose upon the trying court the duty of examining every part of it to see whether, perchance, there is not something in it not admissible in evidence. It is his duty to point out to the court such portions of the record as come within the scope of his objection, and this rule applies as well in civil as in criminal cases.

7. A paper purporting to be the assessment of the property of A, one of the partners of T. & Co., and whose unencumbered real estate T had represented as worth $3,000, in R. county, North Carolina, is certified by the register of the county as a correct transcript of the taxable property of A, as copied from the list returned by the assessor. The certificate and assessment are without date, and do not state what year the statement refers to--HELD:

1. In the absence of evidence that by the law of North Carolina the assessment is a record, and a copy of the record is evidence, the paper is not competent evidence against T.

2. The certificate and assessment being without date, and it being uncertain what year the assessment refers to, for these defects the paper is not competent evidence.

3. The original paper to which the certificate refers, referring to the property of A, and T having no connection with or interest in it, it would not be competent evidence against him.

4. As it is impossible for this appellate court to say that the introduction of this paper in evidence was not prejudicial to the accused, its introduction was error, for which the judgment is reversed.

8. The court instructs the jury " that they must believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the alleged false pretenses were believed by M. & Co.; that but for them they would not have parted with their goods--that is, that they had the prevailing and controlling influence in making M. & Co. part with their property." The instruction is correct.

At the June term, 1878, of the hustings court of the city of Richmond, the grand jury indicted Willard F. Trogdon for the larceny of the goods and chattels of M. Milhiser & Co., of the value of $496.47. Though the indictment was for larceny, the offence charged was in fact for obtaining the goods on false pretences. Willard F. Trogdon was the sole managing partner of the firm of Trogdon & Co., doing business as merchants in Greensboro, North Carolina, which was composed of said Willard F. Trogdon, Cicero L. Trogdon, and I. W. Allrod. On the 28th of February, 1878, Willard F. Trogdon, in the city of Richmond, purchased of M. Millhiser & Co. a parcel of goods, all of which, with the prices of the different articles, are set out in the indictment.

The trial of the prisoner took place at the same term of the court, and the jury found him guilty, and fixed the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary at three years; and the court sentenced him in accordance with the verdict. The prisoner thereupon applied to a judge of this court for a writ of error; which was allowed, to operate as a supersedeas.

On the trial of the case the prisoner took nine bills of exceptions to rulings of the court. The first three exceptions refer to the admissibility of evidence of the purchase of goods by the prisoner, about the same time, of other merchants in Richmond, and the facts are the same in the two first cases, and nearly the same in the third. The facts and the questions are stated by Judge Staples in his opinion.

After the evidence referred to in the first three bills of exception had been introduced the Commonwealth offered in evidence the record of a case in bankruptcy. This was a case in the district court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina. The petition was filed on the 1st of April, 1878. It was in the name of Willard F. Trogdon, stating himself to be of Greensboro, in the county of Guilford, in the district aforesaid, and states that Willard F. Trogdon, Cicero L. Trogdon and Isaac W. Allred, the last two of Gray's chapel, in the county of Randolph, were copartners and transacting business at Greensboro, in the county of Guilford and state of North Carolina; and he asks that he individually, and the said partners, who had carried on business as aforesaid, under the name and style of Trogdon & Co., might be adjudged bankrupts. In the schedule of debts of the firm of Trogdon & Co. filed with this petition, there is stated the debts due M. Millhiser & Co., A. Openhimer, Gardner, Carlton & Baldwin, and Lewis H. Blair, the three first dated the 28th of February, and the last on March 19th; and all these purchases had been proved to be made by the prisoner, and the whole debts on the schedule amounts to upwards of $9,000. There was also a schedule of the property of Allred, afterwards filed by himself in the case. The objection to the record by the prisoner was general, not specifying any part of it.

The fifth exception is to the admission of a paper purporting to be the statement by the prisoner to M. Millhiser & Co. of the names and pecuniary condition of the firm of Trogdon & Co. The Commonwealth proved by G. Millhiser that he was a member of the firm of M. Millhiser & Co., and that he was the general credit man of the concern, and decided whether goods should be sold on credit, but that the other partners had the same authority when they chose to exercise it; that on the 28th of February, 1878, he was in the city of New York, and received of Samuel Hirsh, his partner in Richmond, by mail, on the 2d of March, 1878, a written statement as follows:

" Statement.

Firm W. T. Trogdon, C. L. Trogdon, I. W. Allred:

Allred owns $3,000 real estate unincumbered. Stock $4,000. Took inventory three weeks ago--that amount is bill cost. Began business year ago with $2,700; owes $400 not due. Owes no bills past due. Owes Halsted Haines about $125."

To the introduction of this statement as evidence the prisoner objected; but the court overruled the objection.

The sixth exception is to the introduction of a paper purporting to be the assessment of I. W. Allred's property in Randolph county, in the state of North Carolina. The register of deeds for Randolph county certifies that the paper is a correct transcript of the taxable property as copied from the list returned by the assessor for I. W. Allred. The clerk of the superior court of Randolph county, ex...