State v. Holmes

Citations

• 98 Kan. 174
• 157 P. 412
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 39

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Information- — Obtaining Property by False Pretenses- — Information Sufficient. An information which charged in effect that the defendant through another fraudulently effected a sale of his team of horses; that he afterwards approached the purchaser and falsely represented that the horses so sold had been stolen from him; that he then demanded a return of the team or the payment of their value; that the purchaser gave him a check for their value, which was the equivalent of money; and that he and his accomplice thus conspired together to cheat and defraud the purchaser, and had obtained a check, a thing of value, by false pretenses, stated an offense under section 94 of the crimes act (Gen. Stat. 1909, §2584).</p> <p>2. Same — Averment of Conspiracy — Information Not Vitiated. The averment that another conspired and cooperated with the defendant in obtaining the check by false pretenses did not vitiate the charge against the defendant nor leave room for doubt as to the offense alleged.</p> <p>S. False Pretenses — Obtaining Valuable Check — Offense Complete. In such a prosecution an essential element to be proven is that the fraud was accomplished by the false pretenses alleged, and although the money had not been paid on the cheek when the defendant was arrested and was subsequently restored to the drawer, it was a thing of value when given, as there was money in the bank for its payment, and therefore the fraud was accomplished and the offense charged was complete when the check was obtained by the defendant.</p> <p>4. Same — Restoration of Property — Did Not Expiate the Crime. A restoration of check, money or property fraudulently obtained by an accused does not wash away the criminality of his acts.</p> <p>5. Same — Former Decision Overruled. The State v. Lewis, 26 Kan. 123, overruled.</p>