People v. Larrabee

HOUSER, J.

From a judgment following his conviction of the crime of grand theft, as well as from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied, defendant has appealed to this court.

Briefly, the essential facts presented by the prosecution 'on the trial of the action were that prior to the commission of the offense of which defendant was charged, he and one McDougal were together confined in the county jail of Los Angeles County—the latter under a sentence of $300 fine or 100 days in jail; that because of the .fact that defendant was about to be released from such confinement, McDougal entrusted to him for the purpose of mailing an unsealed letter addressed to a Miss MacKay, in the state of New Jersey, in which letter McDougal described ' his plight and asked Miss MacKay to help him; that on the day following Miss MacKay received a telegram which purported to have been signed and sent by McDougal, but which in fact was not signed or authorized to be signed by him. In substance, the telegram was to the effect that McDougal was in jail and requested that Miss MacKay send $350 to this defendant for the purpose of procuring the release of McDougal. At the bottom of the telegram the following notation appeared: “Sender’s name, Jack Larrabee, . . .” The next day Miss MacKay, by a Western Union Telegraph Company money order, telegraphed $400 to McDougal, “care Mr. Jacques Larrabee”. Later, on the same day, Miss MacKay received a telegram which was signed without the knowledge, consent or authorization of McDougal, but which purportedly was signed by him and by defendant, requesting her to “waive identification, make money payable to Larrabee immediately”. In response to such telegram, Miss MacKay sent the following telegram, addressed to defendant:

“I

hereby waive identification

on.

my money order to Donald McDougal and make money payable to Jacques Larrabee; ...” which telegram defendant pre

[747]

sented to the office of the Western Union Telegraph Company and on account thereof received from such telegraph company the sum of $400. Another telegram and a letter, each addressed to Miss MacKay, and bearing the name of defendant as the sender thereof—the latter of which accompanied the initiatory letter written by McDougal and entrusted to defendant for the purpose- of mailing to Miss MacKay—were received by her. The telegram to which reference has just been had ■ acknowledged receipt by defendant of the sum of $400; and the letter was descriptive of McDougal’s situation, and included the statement that “he asks me to enclose this letter with his to somewhat verify the telegram (with request for aid) that has preceded this letter”. McDougal testified that he never received any money from Miss Mackay, nor did he on his account or otherwise ever authorize defendant to receive any money from her. A deputy sheriff testified that defendant admitted to him that he had sent to Miss MacKay the telegrams to which reference hereinbefore has been had; and that he received the $400; but that he had given it to a man named Mclvor, who, defendant said, had represented himself as a brother-in-law of McDougal.