People v. Shaughnessy

California Supreme Court Dec 26, 1895 No. Crim. No. 40Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who obtains possession of property through fraud or trickery, while the owner retains title and intends only to part with possession, is guilty of larceny.

Issues

Whether a defendant charged with grand larceny can be convicted when the evidence shows the money was obtained through a fraudulent 'bunco' scheme.
Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding the distinction between larceny and obtaining money by false pretenses.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But where the possession has been obtained through a trick or device, with the intent, at the time the party receives it, to convert the same to his own use, and the owner of the property parts merely with the possession, and not with the title, the offense is larceny.”

“The evidence in the case at bar fully sustains the position that the prosecuting witness did not intend to part with his property in the money, and that it was obtained by the rankest kind of fraud.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law. — Larceny—Conspiracy to Defraud—Bunco Game.—■ Where the possession of the money of the prosecuting witness was obtained by a conspiracy on the part of the defendant and the manager of a lottery, to cheat and defraud the prosecuting witness by what is known as the “ bunco game, ” and it appears that the prosecuting wit. ness did not intend to part with his property in the money, and that ife was obtained from him by the grossest fraud, the defendant may be prosecuted and convicted of larceny therefor.

Id.—Instructions—Reading of Code — Fraudulent Obtaining of Money. —Instructions of the court must be read together as a whole, and where the court sufficiently instructs the jury as to the evidence required in order to convict the defendant of larceny under section 484 of the Penal Code, the fact that it reads to the jury section 332 of the Penal Code, in regard to the fraudulent obtaining of money by methods which do not necessarily constitute larceny, is not ground for a reversal of a judgment of conviction of larceny.

Searls, C. An information was lodged against John Shaughnessy, the defendant and appellant here, by the district attorney of the city and county of San Francisco, charging him with the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed at said city and county on the first day of September, 1894, by the felonious stealing, taking, and carrying away two thousand and eighty dollars, etc., the personal property of one Charles Anderson.

He was arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve a term of four years in the state prison at Folsom, California.

From this judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the defendant prosecutes this appeal. A general outline of the case as made by the prosecuting witness, Charles R. Anderson, may be stated thus: In July, 1894, said Anderson made the acquaintance of the defendant Shaughnessy, who professed to be familiar with games and gaming, and who was without ' money, while Anderson had, or professed to have, some four thousand dollars. The prosecuting witness had a wheel of fortune manufactured, and there were negotiations between the parties looking to a trip to South [600]America for gambling purposes, Anderson to furnish the capital and defendant the skill, the profits to be divided.

About the last of August a third man, a stranger named Sampson, appeared on the scene, made the acquaintance of the parties, and professed to come from South Africa, where he had made money. Defendant professed to have seen Sampson’s funds, and to know that he had large means. Thereupon the three agreed to form a copartnership, go to South Africa, open a saloon, and engage in gambling.

An agreement was prepared, and on September 1st the parties started down town to execute this agreement. 'On Grant avenue they stopped at a saloon, at the request •of Sampson, to take a drink, where said Sampson was informed he had drawn a prize in a lottery.

The parties then went to the lottery office, Anderson objecting, but is induced by the others to go upstairs, and to the room where the lottery is carried on. They there find a man in charge, who informs Sampson he has drawn one hundred and twelve dollars, of which sum he pays him one hundred and ten dollars, and, after some discussion, gives him lottery tickets for the two dollars, with which he draws a prize of some twenty dollars; receives more tickets, which he divides with Anderson, and they proceed to another drawing; whereupon Anderson is informed he has drawn an approximate prize of five hundred dollars, but that, to make it absolute, some five other drawings were necessary, and, in the mean time, and as the drawings progressed, the lottery company had a right to demand that certain assessments be put up as evidence of good faith; all of which assessments were to be returned to the player at the end of the drawings, together with the prizes won, if any.

People v. Shaughnessy

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief