209 P. 310 | Ariz. | 1922
This case comes on appeal from Coconino county, where the appellant was charged and convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses, the information charging that the defendant—
“did then and there willfully and unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely and frauduently pretend and represent to the said Lucy Longuevan that if she would pay to. and turn over to him, the said Fred Jamison, defendant, the sum of $60, lawful money of the United States, that he would within thirty days from that date establish and commence to operate a store in the town of Flagstaff, Coconino county, Arizona, and that he would give the said Lucy Longuevan employment in said store and pay her dividends on her investment in said store and pay her a good salary for said employment, and that she was also to receive a reduction on all goods purchased by her from said store. ...”
The evidence in the case shows that appellant came to Phoenix from San Francisco as a solicitor to sell stock in the Pacific League of Co-operative Stores in the month of December, 1921, his employer having a permit under the laws of Arizona to sell stock. While in Phoenix appellant met residents of Flagstaff,
It appears to be well-settled law that a false pretense is a misrepresentation as to an existing fact or a past event, and not a promise to do something in the future, nor a misrepresentation as to something to take place in the future.
In the case of State v. Krouse, 171 Mo. App. 424, 156 S. W. 727, the court.stated:
“A mere promise to do something, relating, as it does, to a future event, is not within the statute. In order to constitute the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses, it is requisite that the false pretense should be either of a past event, or of some fact having a present existence, and it cannot
It would be superfluous to cite further cases, as the law is well settled on the point treated. The information in this case does not come within our statute, nor within the general law on the subject; and in addition we find that the testimony failed to show any representation of a present condition or past event.
Accordingly, the information and the evidence in this case being insufficient, the judgment is reversed, and the defendant discharged.