People v. Alba

it is said in State v. Ryan, 34 Wash. 597 [76 Pac. 90], that:

“But appellant claims that it should have alleged that the $20 was money and of some value. We think it would be difficult to define the meaning of the words ‘twenty dollars’ if they do not mean that sum of money. Everybody in this country knows that the word ‘dollar’ means a certain amount of money. ...”

It has been uniformly held that the use of the word “dollar,” when applied to United States circulating medium, means a fixed and definite value of one hundred cents. (McDonald v. State, 2 Ga. App. 633 [58 S. E. 1067, 1068]; Maxwell v. State, 9 Ga. App. 875 [72 S. E. 445]; People v. Dillon, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 224, 228 [36 Pac. (2d) 416]; People v. Hill, 2 Cal. App. (2d) 141, 148 [37 Pac. (2d) 849]; 13 Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed., p. 240.) In the case of Newlove v. Mercantile Trust Co. of S. F., 156 Cal. 657 [105 Pac. 971] at page 664, the court says:

“The dollar is the legal unit of money in the United States, and whenever figures are used to denote a sum of money ‘such figures must, of course, be understood to represent “dollars” unless a different intention is clearly expressed.’ ”

We conclude that the proof in the present case that the defendants procured by means of fraud from George Palamidesi the sum of “three hundred dollars in money,” establishes the fact that the money was circulating medium of the United States of that specified value, and that the offense therefore amounted to grand theft.

Grand theft is accomplished by fraudulently procuring a sum of money in excess of two hundred dollars from the owner by means of artifice, trickery or misrepresentations even though it is obtained as a pretended loan if it appears to be the intention of the accused person at the time of the transaction not to repay the money. (People v. Weibert, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 457, 464.[64 Pac. (2d) 169]; In re Clark, 34 Cal. App. 440 [167 Pac. 1143]; 15 Cal. Jur. 905, secs. 11 and 12; 32 Am. Jur. 922, sec. 32.) The question of the intent with which the money is procured is a matter for the determination of the jury. (People v. Edwards, 72 Cal. App. 102, 117 [236 Pac. 944].) In the present ease there is no doubt the defendants had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of his money, and to never repay it, at the [866]time when they fraudulently procured it by false representations as a pretended temporary loan.