State v. Millroy

Citations

• 103 Wash. 193
• 174 P. 10
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1047

Syllabus

<p>False Pretenses — Information—Sufficiency. An information for obtaining money under false pretenses is sufficient where it shows that the money was secured by falsely representing that a tract of forty acres in S. county was subject to homestead entry and that accused could locate the prosecuting witnesses thereon, in view of Rem. Code, §§ 2065, 2066, requiring only a statement that may be understood by a person of common understanding which is insufficient only when it tends to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Sufficiency. A conviction of obtaining money under false pretenses is sustained where it appears that accused obtained $300 by falsely representing that land pointed out by him was subject to homestead entry, and by inducing the prosecuting witness to enter a contest and make an entry upon other land.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Continuance—Absence of Witnesses. It is not error to refuse a third continuance to obtain the presence of witnesses who were nonresidents of the state and whose attendance was optional and there was no certainty that it could be obtained.</p> <p>Same — -Trial—Polling Jury — Impeaching Verdict. Where, upon polling the jury, a juror answered “either that or a hung jury,” and upon being admonished, answered, “yes,” the verdict should be received and cannot be impeached.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Impeaching Verdict. The verdict of a jury cannot be impeached by a juror’s affidavit that she, unknown to the other jurors, arrived at her decision by chance.</p>