TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Goble

State v. Goble, 15 N.W. 272 (Iowa 1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 21, 1883
Judges
Beck
Citations
15 N.W. 27260 Iowa 447
Headnotes
1. Criminal Law: false pretenses: what constitutes. An indictment which charges upon the defendant false pretenses in representing that he was one B., is sustained by evidence that defendant, by false actions, induced the defrauded party to believe that he was B. It was not necessary to prove that defendant said that his name was B.
Summary
Appeal from Des Moines District Court. The defendant was indicted and convicted of obtaining money upon false pretenses and was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of three years. He new appeals to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Beck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Beck, J.

I. The indictment charges that defendant did feloniously, by false pretenses, represent that he was one Philip Backer, thereby inducing one Smyth to pay to him a debt due from Gilbert, Hedge & Co. to Backer. The evidence tends to show that Backer was employed in hauling for Gilbert, Hedge & Co., and $70.80 were due him therefor. Defendant had been in the employment of Backer, and applied to Smyth, the book-keeper of Gilbert, Hedges & Co^ for payment for the hauling. Smith asked him his name, the amount due him, and other questions. His answers induced Smyth to believe that he was Backer, and thereupon Smyth paid him the amount due Backer. The evidence shows that defendant represented by his words and action that he was Backer, and did not apply for payment as the agent or servant of Backer. The payment of the money to defendant is not denied. The evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion to which the jury must have arrived, that defendant obtained the money by inducing Smyth to believe that he was Backer, by giving that name, and by his acts and conversation touching the transaction.

II. The court instructed the jury in effect that if l(defendant, with intent to defraud, by false pretense or by false action, induced Smyth to believe that he was Backer, and, upon such belief, Smyth paid him the money, he is guilty of the crime charged, even though he did not state that his name was Backer. ' The instructions áre correct. False and fraudulent pretenses, other than representations that his name was Backer, would authorize a verdict of guilty. Such representations may have been made by acts or declarations intended to induce the belief that he was really Backer.

*449 III. Counsel complain of the instructions on the ground that they authorize the jury to find defendant guilty upon proof of false pretenses other than those set out in the indictment. The indictment charges the false pretenses to be representations that defendant was Backer. It does not allege how these pretenses were expressed, whether by declarations that his name was Backer, or by other statements, or by acts.

IV. It is proper to remark here that our statement of the facts is based upon corrections made by the amended abstract filed by the attorney-general. As the amended abstract is not denied by the defendant, it must be regarded as correct.

We discover no ground upon which the judgment of the District Court can be disturbed; it must, therefore, be

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 11916: 11918: 11940: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Addington v. State74 So. 846 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916) · Dissent
  2. Eaton v. State78 So. 321 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)
  3. State v. Neuhart292 N.W. 791 (Iowa 1940)
  4. State v. Foxton166 Iowa 181 (1914)

Most recent

  1. State v. Neuhart292 N.W. 791 (Iowa 1940)
  2. Eaton v. State78 So. 321 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)
  3. Addington v. State74 So. 846 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916) · Dissent
  4. State v. Foxton166 Iowa 181 (1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list