183 N.W. 998 | S.D. | 1921
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and an order overruling- defendant’s motion for a new trial. The assignments of error based upon an order of the trial court over
The information charges that the defendant—
“* * * did-commit the crime of obtaining money under false preensest as follows, to wit: ‘ That on or 'about said 24th day of September, 1920, * * * said defendant did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously obtain from one C. R. Horswill * * * the sum of $25.in lawful money of the United States, by executing and delivering to said C. R. Horswill- a check as follows:
“ ‘Hudson, Wis., 9 — 24, 1920.
“ ‘Cosmopolitan State Bank: Pay to Self or order $25.00 twenty-five dollars.
“‘Arthur O. Taylor.’
—and by falsely pretending thereby that there was a bank in the city of Hudson, Wis., by the name of Cosmopolitan State Bank, an-di that he, said Arthur O. Taylor, had sufficient money on deposit subject to check in such bank, to- meet the demand of the check above set forth when same should be presented for payment; that in truth and in fact there was no hank in the city of Hudson, Wis., on or about said 24th day of September, 1920, by the name of Cosmopolitan State Bank; that the check above set forth and mentioned was indorsed as follows: Arthur O. Taylor being written on the back thereof, against the form of the statute,” etc.
“Every person who designedly, by color or aid of any false token or writing, or other false pretense, obtains the signature of any person to any written instrument, or obtains from any person any money or property, is punishable, etc.”
It will be observed that the information does not charge that accused, by verbal representations did falsely state that there was a bank -by the name of 'Cosmopolitan State Bank, or that he had
Appellant contends, first, that the information fails to allege that the act was done “designedly,” and does not contain other equivalent words; second, that the information contains no allegation that the act was done “with intent 'to cheat and defraud,” and does not contain any allegation whatever as to intent.
“Every person who designedly, by color or aid of any false token or ■writing, * * * obtains from any person any money or property, is punishable,” etc.
Under this section a specific allegation that the act was done “with intent to cheat or defraud” is not required, and such intent is not a necessary element of the crime defined by this statute. The statute requires only that the act shall have been done “designedly.”
In State v. Paul, supra, quoting with approval from State v. Halida, 28 W. Va. 499, this court said:
“The pretense could not be knowingly false without at the same time being designedly false.”
The allegation that he knowingly employed a false token or writing in the form of a check on a bank which had no existence certainly charges him with knowledge that there was no bank such as that on which the check purported to be drawn.
The information is loosely drawn, and the. form is not to be commended, but we think by a fair interpretation of the language used it sufficiently states a crime under the statute quoted.
The judgment and order of the trial court are affirmed.