State v. Holden
Citations
- 25 Del. 429
- 2 Boyce 429
- 79 A. 215
- 1911 Del. LEXIS 60
Syllabus
<p>1. False Pretenses — Indictment—Value of Property — Pleading and Proof — ‘ ‘ Chattel ”.</p> <p>An averment in an indictment that defendant by false pretenses obtained two oxen from prosecutor was an averment of obtaining by false pretenses a “chattel”, within Rev. Code 1852,amended to 1893, p. 967 (11 Del. Laws, c. 418) § 1, providing that if any person shall by any false pretenses obtain from any other person any chattel, with intent to cheat any person of the same, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., and, no averment of the value of the chattel being required, proof thereof, if averred, was unnecessary.</p> <p>2. False Pretenses — Indictment—Proof.</p> <p>Where an indictment charged that defendant made a false representation to T. respecting the age of a horse, with the intent and for the purpose of cheating and defrauding T., that defendant knew at the time he made such pretense that it was false, and that by reason of such false pretense he obtained certain oxen from T., it was necessary for the state to prove all of such charges beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.</p> <p>3. False Pretenses — Definition.</p> <p>A “false pretense” is such a fraudulent representation of a fact by one knowing it to be untrue as is adapted to induce the one to whom it is made to part with something of value. It may consist of any act, word, symbol, or token calculated to deceive another, and knowingly and designedly employed by any person with intent to defraud another of money or other personal property.</p> <p>4. False Pretenses — Elements—Intent to Cheat and Defraud— Evidence.</p> <p>The intent to cheat and defraud is an essential element of the offense of obtaining property, etc., under false pretenses, and must be proved, though proof may be either by direct or circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>5. Criminal Law — Evidence—Weight—“Reasonable Doubt”.</p> <p>By “reasonable doubt” is not meant a speculative, fanciful, or even possible doubt, but a real, substantia
Judges: Pennewill
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.