People v. Rollins
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Swindling Transaction.—Where plaintiff was deprived of the sum of $100 as the result of a barefaced swindling scheme inaugurated by the defendant, to secure a subscription to pretended mining interests in Alaska which had no existence, the defendant was properly convicted of grand larceny.
Jj>.—Evidence—Conspiracy—Acts and Declarations of Co-conspirators.—Evidence was admissible to show that defendant conspired with others in furtherance of the swindling scheme, and to show material acts and declarations of the co-conspirators, during the life of the conspiracy, and in relation to it.
Id.—Letters from Land Departments Statins Absence of Defendant’s Ownership—Exhibition to Defendant—Implied Acquiescence.—Letters procured by the police from the land office departments of Canada and of the United States, stating that defendant owned no mines in Alaska, which were read to the defendant, were admissible, not as independent proof of the truth of their contents, but to show an admission against interest by defendant by his implied acquiescence in the truth of the statements contained therein.
Id.—Bight of Defendant to Instruction.—The defendant had the right to an instruction, if he had requested it, to the effect that the letters were not admitted as substantive evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them, but to show the attitude of the defendant when they were read to him.
Id.—Sufficiency of Evidence—Proper Befusal of Bequested Instruction.—Seld, that the evidence was abundantly sufficient to go to the jury, and that the court properly refused ■ a requested instruction that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense charged.
Id.—Order of Proof—Conversation With Accomplices Before Proof of Conspiracy.—The rule that declarations of a conspirator cannot be given in evidence before proof of the conspiracy goes to the order of proof, which is in the discretion of the court, and the evidence being sufficient to show the conspiracy, the departure from the' order of proof is matter of no moment, no injury being shown to have resulted therefrom. ,
KERRIGAN, J.
The defendant was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny as charged. He moved for a new trial, and this motion being denied, he was sentenced to im
[136]
prisonment in the state prison for the term of ten years. This appeal is from the judgment.
Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: Three men, Williams, Ameral and Wilson, with the defendant Rollins, doing business under the.name of “The Hypatia Mining and Development Company,” entered into an arrangement for cheating and defrauding a certain class of laborers. Pursuant to this arrangement they caused an advertisement to appear in a newspaper, in answer to which nineteen or twenty men called at the office of the defendant and were there collectively told by Williams that the Hypatia Mining and Development Company was organizing a party of twenty-five to go to Alaska to work on mining claims owned by defendant Rollins and to locate mining claims on property which had been prospected by said Rollins; that said defendant had tried on other occasions to get men to go there and do this mining work, but that after arriving there other companies by offering better pay had enticed them away; that consequently on this occasion, to avert a similar experience, each man desiring to avail himself of the Rollins proposition, would be required to deposit with the defendant and his associates the sum of $200 as a guaranty that the contract would be performed upon his part; that of this sum $40 or $50 could be paid down, and the balance paid in installments. The deposit was to be returned at the completion of the contract, which covered a period of three years. For every dollar deposited they were each to be given one share of stock on the company’s books, which, while not entitling them to the possession of the stock, still gave them the right to any dividends paid upon it. In addition each man was to receive his board and lodging while in Alaska and wages at the rate of $4.50 per day or $6.50 per day, according to the kind of work engaged upon. Williams was to visit Alaska at once and ascertain if the facts were as represented by Rollins. If he found that they were the expenses of his trip were to be paid out of the money deposited by the men. If the outlook was not satisfactory Williams was to pay his own expenses.
Rollins was present at this meeting and he advised MacLeod, the complaining witness, to accept the proposition. Accordingly the next' day MacLeod paid Williams $50 on
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)