Haynes v. State, (1941)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: Jordan Johnson, for Appellant;
J. Tom Watson, Attorney General, and Nathan Cockrell,
Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
Filed: Jul. 08, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of grand larceny. The record shows that the defendant by false and fraudulent representations as to material existing facts and imposing on the confidence of his victim, procured large sums of money from her to be used by him for a stated purpose. The logical conclusion is that he practiced the deception with the purpose and intent to deprive the victim of her money without consideration and to convert the same to his own use. The case is ruled b
Summary: On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of grand larceny. The record shows that the defendant by false and fraudulent representations as to material existing facts and imposing on the confidence of his victim, procured large sums of money from her to be used by him for a stated purpose. The logical conclusion is that he practiced the deception with the purpose and intent to deprive the victim of her money without consideration and to convert the same to his own use. The case is ruled by..
More
It is my view that where the owner, by reason of the false pretenses of another person, voluntarily parts with both the possession and the title to money and delivers the same to such other person, who converts it to his own use, the latter is guilty, not of larceny, but of obtaining money by false pretenses, as denounced by Section 7258 C. G. L. See Lowe v. State, 44 Fla. 449, 32 So. 956; also cases cited in Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435. The facts here are different from those in Bussart v. State.
Source: CourtListener
