81 S.E. 737 | N.C. | 1914
The defendant was indicted for obtaining money by false pretenses, under Revisal, 3432, by selling to J. N. Smith and C. M. Henderlite a certain amount of coke represented to be one ton in weight, whereas it weighed 1,750 pounds, the defendant well knowing the pretense to be false. Said Henderlite was a competitor in trade of the defendant company, and he suspected that it was selling short weight. On 8 January, 1913, he called up the office of the defendant over the phone and asked the price of coke. The reply was $5. He ordered a ton sent to J. N. Smith at a certain corner, and the defendant delivered the order as one ton and received payment. Henderlite then hauled the coke to the scales and found that it weighed only 1,750 pounds.
There are practically but two questions presented that require consideration:
(367) 1. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground of fatal variance in that the indictment charged false pretense "with intent to deceive C. M. Henderlite and J. N. Smith," whereas it appears from the evidence that J. N. Smith was a fictitious person and C. M. Henderlite was not known in the transaction either directly or indirectly, and was not deceived." Revisal, 3432, provides: "It *327
shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining or attempting to obtain any such property by false pretenses to allege that the party did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person and without alleging any ownership of the chattels, money, or valuable securities; and, on the trial of any such indictment, it shall not be necessary to prove an intent to defraud any particular person, but it shall be sufficient to prove that the party accused did the act charged with an intent to defraud." The charge as to the persons intended to be cheated was therefore surplusage and immaterial. S. v. Ridge,
2. The other exception is that a corporation cannot be convicted of a crime which requires an intent.
In S. v. Lumber Co.,
This is fully sustained by all the late authorities. In U.S. v.MacAndrews, 149 Fed., 823, it is held that a corporation can be held criminally liable for conspiracy or any other crime requiring the proof of an intent. The Court says, on page 835: "It was long contended that even civil liability arising from evil intent could not be visited upon an artificial being. This fiction has vanished, and corporate liability on the criminal side permanently established, even for assault. R. R. v. Prentice,
In People v. Star Co.,
It was recently said by the Supreme Court of the United States: "It is true that there are some crimes which in their nature cannot be committed by corporations. But there is a large class of offenses wherein the crime consists in purposely doing things prohibited by statute. (369) In that class of crimes we see no good reason why corporations may not be held responsible for and charged with the knowledge and purpose of their agents, acting within the authority conferred upon them."
In Grant v. U.S., 114 P. 955, it is held: "A corporation can form a criminal intent and have the knowledge essential, provided the officers representing it have such knowledge or intent." To the same effect, U.S.v. Supply Co.,
Indeed, Revisal, 2831 (6), provides: "The word `person' shall extend, and be applied, to bodies politic and corporate as well as to individuals, unless the context clearly shows to the contrary." The word `person' in Revisal, 3432, therefore, embraces corporations. This is fully discussed and sustained upon a similar statute in S. v. Creamery Co.,
Indeed, so many businesses of every kind are now carried on by corporations that it would render nugatory many criminal statutes for the protection of the public if they did not apply to the misconduct of corporations when the statute would apply to the same conduct by an individual. In this present case the business of selling coal and ice is carried on by a corporation, and it violated the statute by the false *329 pretense of selling a ton of coke when it delivered in fact only 1,750 pounds, intending to cheat, as fully as individual could have done. It is true that when the statute imposes a penalty of a fine or imprisonment, that only the fine can be placed upon a corporation. But this is no reason why that should not be imposed. The corporation should not be wholly exempted from punishment because it cannot be imprisoned. The remedy is that the officer or agent may be indicted jointly with the corporation as a coprincipal or accessory, as the case may be, as has been done in the enforcement of the statutes against illegal trusts.
The defendant contends that he is not guilty, because the prosecutor was not deceived. Of course, to constitute the offense the conduct of the defendant must be "intended and calculated to deceive, and did deceive." The evidence was sufficient to establish these facts, (370) and was properly submitted to the jury, and it was so found by their verdict. It is true, the prosecutor had a strong suspicion that the defendant was selling by short weight, but he could not have testified to it as a fact. His testimony is: "I had to buy from you to find out whether you were (selling by short weight) or not." In another place he says that to the best of his judgment the defendant was selling in this mode, but he did not know this and could not know it till he had tested the matter, as he did.
The defendant offered a ton of coke for $5, the offer was accepted and it was paid for as a ton. The prosecutor acted in good faith, because he paid the purchase price for a ton, and on weighing it, the only possible method, he found that there was not a ton. He was therefore induced to part with his $5 in reliance upon the assertion of the defendant that a ton of coke had been sent him. He could not possibly know beforehand whether this would be done or not, nor indeed after he saw the coke until he had actually weighed it. However much he might have mistrusted the defendant's representation, he relied on it by paying the $5 charged.
A very similar case is S. v. Smith,
No error.
Cited: S. v. R.R.,
(371)