Woods v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 1902 |
| Citation | 133 Ala. 162,31 So. 984 |
| Parties | WOODS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hall county court; W. C. Christian, Judge.
Charley Woods was convicted of false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was convicted under the following indictment "The grand jury of said county charge that Charley Wood alias Charley Woods, did falsely pretend to Herbert Evans with intent to defraud, that he had, unincumbered, one cream-colored horse, Sid, and one single, no-top buggy, and by means of such false pretenses, obtained from the firm of Evans Bros., a partnership composed of A. C. Evans, Charlie D. Evans, and Herbert H. Evans, two pairs of pants, of the value of three and 50/100 dollars, and three coats, of the value of six and 25/100 dollars, and six pairs of shoes, of the value of eight and 25/100 dollars, and ten pounds of meat, of the value of one dollar, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." To this indictment the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: (1) It fails to show that the alleged false pretenses were made to the firm alleged to have been defrauded, or any agent or employé or member of said firm; (2) that said indictment fails to show that Herbert Evans was a member of the firm of Evans Bros., or an agent or employe of said firm, or was in any way connected with said firm. This demurrer was overruled. On the trial of the cause there was evidence introduced on the part of the state tending to show that the defendant made the representations as charged in the indictment, and upon the strength of such representations obtained from Evans Bros the goods and merchandise as alleged in the indictment; that the representations were made to Herbert Evans, who was a member at the time of the partnership of Evans Bros mentioned in said indictment, and that he was the same person who was described in the indictment as a member of said firm of the name of H. H. Evans. The testimony for the state further tended to show that at the time of making said representations the defendant had given a mortgage upon the horse owned by him, and said mortgage was a valid and outstanding lien against said horse, and that the defendant owned only the one horse referred to in the indictment, and included in the mortgage. It was further shown that the defendant owned a buggy at the time of making the representations, and there was no proof introduced upon the trial to show that the buggy was, at the time of the representations, incumbered by any lien, but, as a matter of fact, the buggy was wholly unincumbered. Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addington v. State
... ... [74 So. 859] ... [16 Ala.App. 23] necessary to a conviction," and gives ... as the reason: ... "If it were, every malefactor could escape conviction by ... blending some truth with his false pretense." ... Beasley v. State, 59 Ala. 20; Woods v ... State, 133 Ala. 166, 31 So. 984 ... It was ... the province of the jury to pass upon the evidence, and draw ... the inference, if in their judgment the evidence warranted ... it, that the statement imputed to the defendant "that he ... could plead the case of James Addison, ... ...
-
Charlie Wong v. Esola
...54 Wash. 166, 169, 103 P. 27, 18 Ann. Cas. 922, 923; People v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540, 543; Garrett v. State, 76 Ala. 18, 22; Woods v. State, 133 Ala. 165, 31 So. 984; State v. Herren, 173 N. C. 801, 92 S. E. 596; State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 125 S. W. 451, 453; State v. Kilmer, 31 N. D. 442, 1......
-
Pollock v. State
... ... case of Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155, was ... undoubtedly based upon the assumption that the pretense ... charged was the statement of one inseparable fact and ... therefore should have been proven as laid; otherwise, that ... opinion is in conflict with the later case of Woods v ... State, 133 Ala. 162, 31 So. 984, which cites other ... Alabama cases, as well as all the pronouncements of this ... court on the subject. 11 R. C. L. p. 863; Bishop's New ... Crim. Proc. § 171; Gardner v. State, 4 Ala. App ... 131, 58 So. 1001 ... The ... proof made by the ... ...
-
Swindall v. Ford
...will be presumed that B.M. Ford, the justice, and B.M. Ford whose name is signed to the deed, are one and the same person. Woods v. State, 133 Ala. 162, 31 So. 984; Garrett v. State, 76 Ala. 18. The evidently realized that the acknowledgment was defective, for he sought to cure the defect b......