*1 24á in the cases Wolfe
The late Justice 6 Har- v. Harris and Christiansen
McCoy v. 7 the correct- as to expressed his doubts
ris Zolan- in the majority decision
ness of he case Christiansen In the case.
takis requirements expressed the fear
also ago hearings would formal notice and grant- judge from way discourage a
long
ing probation. P.2d 96 Respondent, Utah, Plaintiff
STATE of Vatsis, Defendants
Mary John VATSIS Appellants.
No. 8989.
Supreme of Utah. Court
April 1960. P.2d 721.
6. 1, 163 P.2d 7. 109 Utah Black, Wallace,
Rawlings, & Roberts appellants. City, Salt Lake for Atty. Gen., Budge, L. Homer F. Walter Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., respondent. Asst. *2 CALLISTER, Justice. defendant, Mary Vatsis, charged
The Vatsis, husband, jointly with her with John money by pre- false obtaining the crime of action A tense.1 motion dismiss granted against Vatsis was John defendant’s trial court and the issue of a guilt jury. From to the was submitted upon the judgment of conviction entered ap- jury’s guilty, defendant verdict of peals. operated auto- an Vatsis owned
John dealership, H mobile known the V & as Price, Company, Motor in Utah. The de- kept manager, fendant acted as office books, sold automobiles. Com- pany arrangement an with Commercial Corporation whereby Credit latter Company from the condi- tional sale contracts for the sale of auto- mobiles. action, money, goods, wares, in chat- tels, thing, effects or other valuable defraud, any person intent to cheat or same, prop- of the if the value of the erty $50, obtained so does not exceed is money petit “Obtaining punishable lareeny, 76-20-8, in cases of U.C.A.1953: property person pretense. Every so and when the is of who obtained false — n $30, person designedly, by knowingly value of more than false or punishable offending pretenses, representations as in is cases of or so grand fraudulent larceny'.” person any any other chose from obtains said, given 12, 1957, effect, Com- and have that she or March
On about Corporation authorization, from the purchased she wasn’t sure. mercial Credit 9, 1957, a March contract dated explanation discrepancy, In of the Miss appeared Company wherein V & H Motor representatives Com- Troulis stated that buyer of Ann Troulis as as seller and one prior paid mercial a visit Credit Commercial certain Buick automobile. requested preliminary to the hearing $2,175 con- paid for the Credit the sum of statement. This she refused tract. didn’t, to do and she was told if she pay According might she have for the by the car. It is admitted witness, being con- to the it was to the the fear signed the prompted pay forced to the car automobile the said Buick tract testify sold, to to as she did at the hear- subsequently April on ing. paid therefor and person a third cash sale, After car. received title Miss further month- personally made three
the defendant automobile, possession took never of the contract to ly payments upon the Troulis having nor could remember seen or of Ann in the name driven such a car. *3 Troulis. It is the contention of the defendant testimony the ef- to produced The State prove that the State failed to other had sold that defendant fect the forged the the name of Troulis to con bragged and even had fictitious contracts It be that the tract. well if defendant it. about charged with the crime been had of that Ann Troulis had was The defense prove forgery, the State have to not sign authority to her given the defendant only sign Ann Troulis that did not the that, after the and to the contract name document, that but also her name was sold, Ann Troulis been contract had authority.2 However, signed without in and advised defendant mind changed her the amended the instant case information automobile. the could not
that charged the with obtaining by pretenses. necessary money The hearing Ann false At the (1) of offense are a false not elements or unequivocally representation (2) made authority know to her fraudulent the given However, (3) to be with intent to ing at it such cheat the contract. to the person repre- to the whom the changed testimony or defraud Ann Troulis Jones, 503, 20 614. P.2d State v. the made; Certainly, it fraud was not unreasonable (4) an actual sentation jury, observing perpetrated in the sense the benefit of be must have to demeanor, to the conclusion value was obtained arrive at something of pre- value; Miss the at Troulis told truth the something of the victim lost at trial. representation liminary hearing, rather than the have induced (5) must the in the part property his to owner dissenting opinion viewed The has prop- parted with his that the owner sense a the defendant’s claims in and evidence repre- upon erty the truth of the reliance in However, light we most favorable to her. sentation.3 evidence, must all fair view and all reasonably inferences to be presented drawn there We believe the evidence from, light these most favorable by prove to sufficient to the State was jury’s doing, it obtained verdict. So cannot be said essential elements. The defendant Corpora that reasonable minds could not believe the money from beyond guilty was defendant reasonable representing that the contract by tion Troulis doubt.5 If Ann signed Ann Troulis. authority sign her to
gave the defendant assignment The error the defend- de name, for affirmative this was matter that the court erred in ant instructing obligated not to The fense. State was jury is without merit. ele prove authority an as essential lack Affirmed. charged. crime ment of believe jury was not to bound CROCKETT, J., C. and HENRIOD authority testimony she had McDonough, defendant’s jj., concur. of Ann Troulis to sign the name WADE, (dissenting). Justice give contract, prerogative to it was their finding I dissent. think that de- they it en weight thought only such forged fendant the name Ann light in the of all considered
titled
the conditional
surrounding the
sales
or that
circumstances
facts
contract was fictitious
there
no
of the
occasion, including the self-interest
car,
bona fide sale of the Buick
be
*4
jury
that de
would
could decide
witness.4
supported by
ac unreasonable and not
the evi-
in conflict with her
story was
fendant’s
dence.
tions.
481,
Sullivan,
110,
Timmerman,
6
P.
5. State
v.
Utah 2d
55
307 P.
v.
3. State
1320,
2d 212.
4. State 2d 711. contract had me the she told facts: that” following the to Defendant testified at also been canceled. Ann car to the Buick She demonstrated evening March the of her home on hearing Ann denied preliminary the On the with buy the car agreed Ann to and de- authorized bought that she this car or con- the cancel could reservation that she the contract. sign her name to fendant to the that days if she decided tract in fewa that trial, however, conceded On Ann she deep freeze obligation this car and of sign may defendant to she have authorized much. too already bought be had contract, Buick that the her name to the con- of a a form Defendant did not have possession may been in her car have left Ann her, so ditional sales contract contract, and until canceled the after she she re- prepare when authorized to one her may that have authorized she to sign her name turned the office and to arrange necessary to to do whatever was arrange necessary to what was do purchase. testified credit for She such car. Buick credit for the of explaining that been “bulldozed” she had Ann, March but on The car was left with representatives of the Commercial three 13, 1957, the con- after defendant had sold Corporation her before Credit visited the check tract before she had cashed but sign a hearing, to asking her therefor, canceled which she received refused, and one which she statement she the contract and defendant testified lady, you said, don’t “Young if them Corpora- notified the Commercial Credit up for this car.” She you paying will end authorized such and was tion of cancellation preliminary hear- that at the further said money to to cash check and send the testified, give “No I didn’t ing she them check. name,” my because I use permission to up getting “thought I would be mixed that she Mr. Defendant testified notified anything just about and I car I didn’t know Manager Green, the Unit say ‘no’ my only was to because answer felt Corporation, the cancellation of threatened.” and I had been afraid by telephone. the Troulis contract Mr. not did admitted that he remembered At testified Green merely buy Apparently she Buick car. conversation notified pur- complete the of another meant that she did not the cancellation contract him of purchased chase, been from the H because she admitted V & which time, sign her paid at the same have authorized defendant to Motor Co. car in check and leave the the contract the same the sale possession finance conversation, arrange in that same but purchase. have but I don’t later the contract could remember but canceled “[S]he *5 by Ann If there fide contract was bona no then purchase car
Troulis to Buick perpetrated. contract
fraud was If the
purchase the finance was when sold valid canceled later
company, the that was fact it contract
does not make the sale burden of
fraudulent. The State has ma-
eliminating all doubt reasonable fact
terial One material charged. facts no bona fide
charged was that there the contract
sale of the Buick car but that Since was fictitious.
Troulis, purportedly made the it, not sure had not authorized eliminate all
State has failed to reasonable invalid. contract was So
doubt case reversed with
think the should be
directions to the action. dismiss Hanson, Allen, Baldwin & Lake Salt P.2d 623 City, appellants. for RUF, Respondent, Walter H. Plaintiff Cott, Bagley, & McCarthy, Van Cornwall City, respondent. Lake Salt WORLD TRAVEL
ASSOCIATION FOR Kenny, James F. EXCHANGE Appellants. HENRIOD, Justice. Defendants No. 9114. $21,344.57 Appeal from a verdict where, collision, plain in an intersection Supreme Utah. Court of spinal allegedly injury suffered a tiff after April 28, 1960. buttocks, landing on from his which cir his cumstances’ he bottoms claim. Another plaintiff, granted is unless within