No. 22,928 | Minn. | Dec 15, 1922
Lead Opinion
Defendants were indicted for grand larceny in that they obtained from Margaret Evans $2,721 by false pretenses. All were found guilty and each appeals.
After a few minutes, Elizabeth took her out to a farm near Elk River, 30 miles away. There she met the other defendants. There defendant Carl Hacker took her in charge, took her “horoscope,” flattered her, told her about the wonderful proposition he had, the Standard Farms Development Company. He said the old company was the Standard Farms Company, but that he had bought out that company and was going to organize the Standard Farms Development Company for the promotion and development of farm lands. He said it was a wonderful proposition, well fixed financially,
In fact she never received any salary, never received any money as treasurer, never had opportunity to perform any duties as treasurer. Finally she complained that there didn’t seem to be anything for her to do and that she was disinterested. After some further conversation, Carl said: “You are too honest, you get right out of my office.” At his suggestion she resigned as treasurer and director.
The substantial representations made were false. The corporation never had assets of consequence, in hand or in prospect. Carl had invested no such sum as he claimed. There was no prospect and no intention of making her a real treasurer nor of paying her a salary, nor of giving her stock, nor of her realizing dividends. Carl never received permission from the State Securities Commission to sell stock or securities, but on the coutrary his applications showed no substantial assets, and one was rejected, with the memorandum that the sale of the securities proposed to be sold, would, in the opinion of the commission “work a fraud on the purchasers thereof.”
The law would be very inadequate to the demands of justice, if it did not stamp Carl’s conduct as not only fradulent but criminal. Clearly he obtained money by false pretences. It may be surprising that Margaret should have been deceived by such shallow pretence, but it appears that others were also deceived, among them lawyers, bank clerks and others of more business experience than had she. Defendants contend that the transaction was merely a loan of money tp Carl. They call it “an ordinary business transaction” of loaning money at 6 per cent interest. Clearly it was not. It matters little that Carl put the papers in the form of a loan, nor would it matter much if it were in fact a loan. The misrepresentation, the fraud, the false pretence, to induce her to part with her
Carl’s guilt is beyond question. The guilt of the others is not so clear, but we think the evidence sufficient to establish their guilt. Elizabeth actively participated in this transaction from the start. Ida’s participation was not so active or constant, but yet it was frequent, and it must have been with knowledge of the fraud.
It is argued particularly that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of defendant Frances Hacker. We think the evidence is sufficient. She was present during some of the most important transactions and often participated.
In her presence, Carl stated that all of the defendants had money invested in the Standard Farms Development Company, and told of the proposition to make Margaret “treasurer of our new company.” One evening at the supper table, with defendants all present, they put up to Margaret the proposition of investing money. Carl asked her to write home and get it, and then said “now watch her squirm.” Margaret said she could get it by writing home and the letter was at once written that produced the first check. Frances was present when this money was paid over to Carl. He asked Margaret to keep back $50 for expenses. Frances shook her head. • Margaret then said, if she was to receive $150 a month, she wouldn’t need the $50, and Carl, in the presence of all the defendants, then promised Margaret $150 a month for the time she was on the farm, and said the other girls were to get the same. A week or two later, Frances said at the dinner table: “Carl * * * you haven’t given Margaret anything yet to show for her money,” and suggested that he had ^better write a slip or something to show for the money,” and it was then he gave Margaret the first note, the device by which defendants now endeavor to class the transaction as a simple loan. While Margaret was endeavoring to get the second and larger amount from home, there was brought to her, at the farm one night, a special delivery letter from her father. The contents are not disclosed, but when she read it she
Defendants complain that the court received evidence of several witnesses as to similar representations made to them. The testimony was that, in each case, substantially the same grotesque course of conduct was followed as in the case of Margaret. There was the horoscope, the offer of a job, of bonus stock with big returns, the exploiting of plans for a large hotel and the personal note device.
The testimony was admissible for several reasons:
It comes within the principle of such cases as State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 172 N. W. 313, holding that testimony of other offenses is admissible where it tends to show a general scheme, or plan, or system, as to defraud, and is therefore corroborative of the evidence of complainant. In fact one of these witnesses testified to this: (Record p. 323.)
“A. Why, Mr. Hacker asked me to go on the road with him and help fleece the small country town bankers. He said all you had to do is to put on a big front and show them about the various schemes and corporations you had in mind and show a financial statement of assets and properties that was owned by them and give them a personal note. He said, ‘That’s the way to get them, that’s the way I get all of them.’ * * * ‘That’s all you got to give them, is just your personal note,’ he says, “lawyers can’t get me or anything else, I have got that all fixed.’ ”
Order affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting.)
I dissent.
In my view of the evidence in this case the verdict of guilty against defendant Frances Hacker is not sustained; at least the evidence taken in all its parts is so doubtful of her active culpable participation in the transaction that she should be given another trial. I concur in the opinion in all other respects.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting.)
I concur in the view as expressed by the Chief Justice.