People v. Flowers

JAMES, J.

The defendant was convicted under the charge of having obtained personal property of one Rinker by means of false representations and pretenses.- He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

It is first contended that the court was in error in overruling an objection to the introduction of evidence and in denying a motion in arrest of judgment. The point made in that behalf is that the information did not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute the public offense attempted to be charged. It is argued by counsel that no “causal connection” is shown between the alleged false pretenses and the effect attributed to them. In the information it was alleged that appellant represented and pretended that he was the owner of and possessed of the title to a certain printing plant; that he was lawfully entitled to sell and convey an interest therein; that Rinker, believing the representations and pretenses as alleged to be true, and relying upon the same, was deceived thereby, * and paid to appellant the sum of $130 in money and delivered to him liberty bonds of the value of $95 and an automobile of the value of $400. It was then alleged as follows: “That in truth and in fact each and all of the said representations and pretenses, so made as aforesaid, by the said J. M. Flowers "to the said Richard Rinker were then and there false, fraudulent, and untrue, as he, the said J. M. Flowers, then and there well knew. That in truth and in fact the said J. M. Flowers was not then and there, or at any time, or at all, the owner of, or possessed of the legal title to, or the owner of, or entitled to

[216]

any interest whatsoever in and to that certain printing plant with the accessories thereof as hereinbefore described, as he, the said J. M. Flowers, then and there well knew.” The information also contained allegations that the representations and pretenses were willfully, fraudulently, and feloniously made with intent to defraud the said Pinker. It also contained an allegation that appellant executed a written bill of sale whereby he pretended to convey to said Pinker an undivided one-half interest in the said printing plant. It appears then that the information clearly charged representations to have been made by appellant that he was the owner of the printing plant; that by reason of said representations Pinker was induced to deliver to appellant the money and property in exchange for a one-half interest in the plant, and that the representations as to ownership made by appellant were false, and that he had no interest whatsoever in the printing plant.