Armacost v. State

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted under an indictment which charged that he, Erba Armacost, “unlawfully and wilfully did obtain certain credits, goods and wares of the value of one hundred and thirty-two dollars current money of the United States from a certain Vincent T. Capíes, with intent then and there him the said Vincent T. Candes to defraud by means of a certain check' drawn upon the First National Bank of Hampstead (a body corporate), not indebted to the said Erba Armacost, the said Erba Armacost not providing for the payment and acceptance of the said check, the same not being paid upon presentation * * * .” A demurrer to the indictment was filed on the ground that it omits to allege the nature or ownership! of the “credits, goods and wares” to which it refers. The principal question on this appeal is whether the demurrer was properly overruled. The statute under which the appellant was indicted is codified as section 123 of Article. 27 of the Code of Public General Laws, having' been enacted by Chapter 281 of the Acts of 19M.

It provides in part as follows: “Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud another, shall obtain money, credit, goods, wares or anything of value by means of a check, draft or any ²⁹¹ other negotiable instrument o£ any kind drawn upon any bank, person, firm or corporation, not indebted to drawer, or where he has not provided for the payment or acceptance, and the same he not paid upon presentation, shall be deemed to have obtained such money, credit, goods or things of value by means of a false pretense, and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as provided in Section 122 of this Article, at the discretion of the Court.” By section 122 it is provided: “Any person who shall by any false pretense obtain from any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security, with intent to defraud any person of the same, shall he guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof, shall he liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be punished by fine and imprisonment, or by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two years nor more than ten years, as the Court- shall award * * * .” In the case of State v. Blizzard, 70 Md. 385 , an indictment for false pretenses was held to he demurrable because it did not name tbe owner or contain a, sufficient description of the securities obtained through the alleged deception. The indictment in that case charged that the defendant- “by certain false pretense by bim then and there made to Richard Manning, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did obtain from Richard Manning a certain valuable security, to wit, a certain bill of sale or mortgage, of personal property, for the payment of $600 on condition, executed by one, John Blizzard, to Annie AI. Blizzard and Samuel Blizzard; and certain other valuable securities, to wit, tbe endorsement and signature of the said Annie M. Blizzard to two certain promissory notes for the payment of $300 each, and the signature of Samuel M. Blizzard, her husband, with her, the said Annie M. Blizzard, to said promissory notes, with intent then and there to defraud * * This Court, in holding the in ²⁹² dictment defective, partly on the ground that it did not allege the ownership of the securities, said, in its opinion as delivered by Chief Judge Alvey: “It is settled by all the authorities, that it is no less requisite.in indictments for obtaining property by false pretenses, that the ownership of the property or securities obtained should be distinctly alleged, than it is that such averments should be made in indictments for larceny. The cases are numerous where it has been held that the omission to allege the ownership of property was fatal to the sufficiency of the indictment, even after conviction.” The conclusion thus reached was not affected by .statutory provisions which were then considered and are here relied upon, that “in any indictment for false pretenses, it shall not be necessary, to state the particular false pretenses intended to be relied 'bn in proof of the same, but the defendant, on application to the State’s Attorney before the trial, shall be entitled to the names of the witnesses and a statement of the false pretenses intended to be given in evidence” (Code, Art. 27, sec. 498),