Dolan v. State

²⁹⁵ Per Curiam. Appellant appeals from convictions and sentences of (a) five years confinement on a charge of false pretenses (Indictment No. 5769), and (b) six months confinement on a charge of unlawfully acting as an insurance agent and broker while unlicensed (Indictment No. 5778). At trial, it was stipulated that appellant’s licenses to operate as agent or broker in Maryland were suspended indefinitely on October 20, 1962, and that on the date of the alleged offenses, September 10, 1965, appellant was not a licensed insurance agent or broker. Testimony was produced that on September 10, 1965, Melvin Holmes, an investigator for the Department of Motor Vehicles, acting under instructions of his supervisors, had gone to appellant’s place of business for the express purpose of attempting to purchase automobile insurance from appellant.

Holmes gave appellant $20.00 and received a completed UCJ-1 form from the appellant, which certified Holmes to be insured and qualified to obtain license tags for a motor vehicle. Indictment No. 5769 (False Pretenses) An essential element of the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses is that the victim relied upon the false representation. Levy v. State, 225 Md. 201, 206 . It is conceded in this case that the supposed victim of the false pretense knew that any representation by Dolan that he possessed the power and authority to commit an insurer to the protection of a proposed assured was false.

Judgment entered under this indictment cannot stand. Indictment No. 5778 In this appeal it is contended that the trial court demonstrated prejudice by statements made during the course of a hearing on preliminary motions, and that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a change of venue because of alleged prejudicial publicity. There is merit in neither contention. The suggested prejudice of the court is based upon a comment of the court in ruling on a preliminary motion.

No objection was made at the time and no later motion that the trial judge disqualify himself was made. The point is thus not before us. Maryland Rule 1085. In any event the case was decided by a ²⁹⁶ jury and there is not the slightest suggestion of judicial impropriety in its entire course.

Nicholson v. Blanchette, 239 Md. 168, 175 . As to the Court’s refusal to grant a change of venue — Article 75 §44 itself makes it clear that, in cases such as the subject, before a removal will be ordered the