Woodruff v. State

Decision Date15 July 1895
Citation32 S.W. 102
PartiesWOODRUFF v. STATE.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Perry county; Robert J. Sea, Judge.

W. E. Woodruff was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.

The record discloses that at the ___ term, 1893, of the Pulaski circuit court, W. E. Woodruff was indicted for the crime of false pretenses, said indictment containing two counts. A demurrer was interposed by the defendant on the ground that more than one offense was charged in the indictment, and, the state electing to stand on the first count in the indictment, the demurrer was overruled. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and filed a motion for a change of venue, and the case was sent to Perry county. Here the defendant entered a demurrer in short on the record, which was overruled. The case was tried, the jury returning a verdict of guilty, and assessing defendant's punishment at imprisonment for one year in the state penitentiary. A motion was filed in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and defendant was sentenced in accordance with the verdict. He filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, took his bill of exceptions, and prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted by the chief justice. All of the instructions to the jury asked by the defendant were refused, and the only instructions given were given of the court's own motion.

Dan W. Jones, J. E. London, J. F. Sellers, G. W. Murphy, and T. M. Seawell, for appellant. E. B. Kinsworthy, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WINCHESTER, Special Judge (after stating the facts).

The appellant was indicted under section 1573, Sand. & H. Dig., which is as follows: "Every person who, with intent to defraud or cheat another, shall designedly, by color of any false token or writing, or by any other false pretense, obtain a signature of any person to any written instrument, or obtain from any person any money, personal property, right in action, or other valuable thing or effects whatever, upon conviction thereof shall be deemed guilty of larceny and punished accordingly." The indictment charges: "The said William E. Woodruff, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 6th day of January, 1891, being then and there the duly-qualified and acting treasurer of the state of Arkansas, unlawfully and feloniously, intending and devising to cheat and defraud the state of Arkansas, and James P. Eagle and W. S. Dunlop and Ben B. Chism, who, together with the said William E. Woodruff, constituted the state debt board of Arkansas, falsely, fraudulently, and designedly did pretend and represent to the said James P. Eagle, W. S. Dunlop, and Ben B. Chism, members of the state debt board of Arkansas as aforesaid, that he, the said William E. Woodruff, who at the time aforesaid was the duly-qualified and acting treasurer of the state of Arkansas, had on the 12th day of December, 1890, received of and from one Johnson L. Jones certain coupons and bonds of the state of Arkansas, to wit [description omitted], being a total of 171 coupons, of the value of $30 each, and that the said Johnson L. Jones desired to exchange the same for state certificates of indebtedness, commonly called `bond scrip,' and that said coupons were a valid and outstanding charge against the state of Arkansas, and that the bonds from which said coupons had been clipped had been redeemed, and which coupons he, the said William E. Woodruff, then and there exhibited and presented to the said James P. Eagle, W. S. Dunlop, and Ben B. Chism, members of the state debt board of Arkansas as aforesaid, by means of which false pretenses and representations he, said William E. Woodruff, did then and there, fraudulently and feloniously, obtain the signature of James P. Eagle, governor of Arkansas and president of the state debt board, W. S. Dunlop, auditor of the state of Arkansas, and member of the state debt board, and of Ben B. Chism, secretary of the state of Arkansas and secretary of the state debt board of Arkansas, to a written instrument, to wit, to order No. 126 of the state debt board of Arkansas, authorizing him, the said William E. Woodruff, treasurer of the state of Arkansas as aforesaid, to issue state certificates of indebtedness, commonly called `bond scrip,' to John. L. Jones, to the amount of $5,130, in exchange for the said 171 coupons, as above described and set forth, which said written instrument was in words and figures as follows, to wit [order omitted], "and which said written instrument, with the signature of the said above-named James P. Eagle, governor of Arkansas and president of the state debt board, and W. E. Woodruff, treasurer, and W. S. Dunlop, auditor, of the state of Arkansas, and a member of said state debt board, and Ben B. Chism, secretary of the state of Arkansas and secretary of said state debt board, signed thereto, was then and there delivered to the said Wm. E. Woodruff, treasurer as aforesaid, it being of the value of $5,130." Then follows a negation of the alleged false pretenses and representations, and the following: "And the bonds from which said coupons had been clipped had not been redeemed, but said coupons had been received at some date previous to December 12th, 1890, into the treasury of the state of Arkansas, in payment of debts due the state of Arkansas; all of which he, the said Wm. E. Woodruff, then and there well knew, — against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas."

The appellant questions the sufficiency of the indictment, by demurrer, in his motion in arrest of judgment, and by apt instructions, saying that it charges no public offense. His main contention is that the order upon which the indictment is predicated is an instrument unknown to the law. The indictment under our statute sufficiently charges the crime of false pretenses. Sand. & H. Dig. § 1573; Id. 2075, 2076; Wood v. State, 47 Ark. 488, 1 S. W. 709. By the acts of 1887, approved April 5, 1887, the state debt board was created, composed of the governor, secretary, and auditor of state, having certain duties, and clothed with certain powers, as therein set out. This act was amended by an act, approved April 9, 1889, which by its terms was to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. By the first section of the latter act the treasurer of state was made a member of the state debt board. By the third section of both acts it is provided "that the entire state debt board shall be necessary for the transaction of business." Sections 6, 9, and 11 of the act of 1889, will be noticed particularly in this connection. These sections read as follows: "Sec. 6. The treasurer shall, under and by direction of the state debt board, pay out the money now in or hereafter to be paid into the sinking fund, by redeeming under such regulations as the state debt board may adopt under the provisions of this act, all of the five and six per cent. bonds of the State Bank and Real Estate Bank of Arkansas, and the bonds and past due coupons of the six per cent, funding bonds of 1869 and 1870, and the overdue interest on the same, now outstanding, excepting those now belonging to the United States, and those held in trust by the United States, and those that have been declared illegal by amendment to the constitution of this state, numbered one (1) and such of the refunded bonds of the state as may be found to have been issued in lieu of the bonds of the state which were illegally disposed of by the officers, agents or commissioners of the Real Estate Bank of Arkansas, or of the State Bank of Arkansas."

"Sec. 9. Said board shall not accept any proposal for sale at a greater price than the par value and accrued interest of any such bonds. Nor shall said board accept a proposal for sale of less than the whole of any bonds, including interest, nor at any time make a partial payment on any bond, and no coupons shall be paid unless attached to and surrendered with the bond, provided, that when interest coupons may be outstanding, and the principal of the bond from which they were taken has been paid in full, such coupons may be treated as though they were original bonds. Provided further, that said state debt board may reject any and all bids under the provisions of this act."

"Sec. 11. That said board may from time to time direct the treasurer to cause to be engraved and printed, in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 dollars, state certificates of indebtedness to be signed by the treasurer, and exchanged by him upon the order of the board, for any of the outstanding, valid and undisputed bonds and matured coupons of the state, under the same restrictions and limitations and upon the same terms and conditions as prescribed for purchase of bonds in sections 6 and 9 of this act. And the sum of two thousand dollars, payable out of the sinking fund, is hereby appropriated to pay for the engraving and printing of said certificates, for the two years commencing on and after the date of passage of this act."

In pursuance of the powers granted it in these sections, the state debt board adopted the following rules and regulations:. "Little Rock, May 8, 1889. The state debt board met. Present: J. P. Eagle, governor; W. S. Dunlop, auditor; W. E. Woodruff, treasurer, and B. B. Chism, secretary of state. On motion, the following regulations were adopted: Additional regulations for transacting of business of the state debt board. * * * (4) Holders desiring to convert bonds into certificates of indebtedness shall file the same with the treasurer of state for examination and safe-keeping. If receivable, the treasurer shall give an official receipt therefor, describing the bonds and coupons by numbers and dates, and the holder shall present the same to the secretary of the board, who shall enter in the record a memorandum authorizing the exchange after the order shall have been signed by the board, also describing the bonds and coupons by numbers and dates. At the next meeting of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Woodruff v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 15 d1 Julho d1 1895
  • Schultz v. State, 4657
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 2 d1 Julho d1 1951
    ...distinguished from a purpose to defraud, appellant thinks the Court should have directed a verdict in his favor. He cites Woodruff v. State, 61 Ark. 157, 32 S.W. 102. Substance of Special Justice Winchester's opinion in the Woodruff case is that in order to convict it must be shown that the......

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