*1 384 mortgage sheep point to a
have reduced the on the below figure down, paid the children lowest to which it had been should have a credit for such amount. some for the contention
I there is thеrefore basis findings support judgment defen- in favor of will proceeds sheep. Thе of the dant bank for the sale nothing findings from difficulty I find is that there part $1,165 paid which it can whаt of the be determined part paid sheep. The for the for the land and what specifies, being I think reversed as decision judg- instructions to enter not with should $932, plaintiffs but to mеnt favor of accounting point this and for an introduced on to be sheep over the from the children’s land and to the income findings appropriate original mortgage, and period from the made, judgment to follow the find- evidence to frоm such ings.
STATE v. BLAND. 2, 1937. P. December No. 5903. Decided [2d] *2 J. R. Haas Cowley, and Matthew City, both of Salt Lake аppellant. for
Joseph Chez, Atty. Gen., Deputy Zélph Calder, Atty. S. Gen., the for State.
WOLFE, Justice. using fraudulently
Defеndant was convicted registration automobile, application name in аn of an appeals. 125, 10, chapter 46, Section article Laws of laid, Utah undеr which the information reads was as follows: “Any person fraudulently any uses or name in fictitious title, application registration or a the vehicle certificatе of knowingly knowingly
or makes a false statement or conceals a materiаl any application, fact or otherwise commits a fraud such felony.” pоrtion part pertinent
The italicized is the to this case. Defendant to the the nаme “Bert Peter- ; the son” also same name to the conditional sale contract and registration. No certificate of actual fraud was charged proved. The seller of the car was not defrauded injured. The defendant also his address as 5763 that there was Fourth East. There was no evidence
South. address, name оr that there was “no such an but not such registered was no evidence in the directories.” There address directory covering issued that there be, locality purported living address where such farming out in the testified would be was which therefore, is, Murray, This Utah. sоutheast of competent presented false address. result as a false оr fictitious well necessary though now might, It not different. hold, facie case of “fraudulent use make to so name.” a false or fictitious only protect purposе supra, of section purchaser. persons dealing cars or other
sellers of police purpose. It was to It had broader *3 plate the true others to from the license number trace prove a casе of fraudulent owner of a car. In order to not, therefore, be re-i use falsе would at quired signer in mind to of such name had show signed particular perpe he а fraud the time he desired to intent shield him with to trate. he violating any in he traffic laws self сase was accused ordinances, do it would be sufficient. Nor that we required tо name wait until he used State would be off track throw when confronted to officеrs others purposes a The intent to use it of future with violation. But, deception might frоm be inferred the circumstances. on hand, mere we do not think the use of a the other different prima facie own makes out a case of “fraudu name than his Mаny persons false name.” are lent use a better known by stage give real by a nаme a name. To their real than likely guard be more to throw officers off name would identity. We think their the word “fraudulent” conceal habitually pseudo so that used а fixed inserted felony. nym not be held case there had If in this been actual that addition given false name the defendant had there prima have been sufficient to mаke facie signing that, bad motive in As to we name. Believing need not decide. as we do that the word “fraudulent,” inserted in section must have been require proof intendеd to that defendant wrong motive, name a bad the mere that use by name other than his own does itself make out a motive, facie case bad and that there this сase that, other than we must conclude that the motion of defendant dismiss case and for a new trial were well taken. cause remanded to the court trial. new
FOLLAND, J., JJ., LARSON, C. and HANSON and con- cur.
MOFFAT, I concur Justice. in the result.
STATE v. O’DAY. No. 5913. Decided December 1937. P. [2d]