Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-29
GutaI anS YirsomaL.

United states vs.. Chas. III. Van Patten.-
This was prosecution for obtaining from one
Lewis Hicks, man Of color, one hundred and
ifiy dollars, as was alleged, by false preiences.
The case was recently brought before Justice
Dom, who delivered the following decision, and
to whom we are indebted for copy of H.
"The facts disclosed by the evidence on the
part of the United States and upon which the
prosecution rests, (no testimony having been Of
fered on the part of the accnsedD were briefly
these: In the month of April, 1853, the defendant
bargained and sold, and by good and sufficient
deed conveyed to the said Hicks, in fee, LOT Of
ground lying and being in the city of Washington,
for The sum OF SITS, of which sum has been paid
by the said Hicks 10 the defendant the sum of $25
on the goth Of April, 1853, the day on which said
Hicks executed and delivered 10 said defendant
his promissory for $780, being for the balance
OF the purchase, as aforesaid the same being
made payable TO HIM or order at twelve months
after date and TO secure the payment Of
said note the said Hicks executed and de-
livered 10 the said Van Patten deed of trust
10 ---, as trustee, in the usual form. Shortly
after the making of the said note and the execu.
ton and delivery thereof (say May 81 the said
Van Patten, with his endorsement, placed the said
note in the hands of William Marshall, through
whose fundamentally il was cashed by James
Adams, Cashier of the Bank Of Washington, on
his private account and the proceeds thereof paid
made payment on the note to defendant of SOS,
and June LIST, SO July 9th, $40; August 5th $40
September 18th, SIS; October 4th $40; November
10th, IS; January Sd, SO; March 6tn, $40; alto
gether, the sum of sos, before the note had ma:
tured; and that, for each of said amounts paid,
said defendant gave to said Hicks an explicit re-
ceipt for SO much money paid on the said note
that on Saturday, the 22d day of April, 1854, Viii
liam +. Howard, notary for the Bank of Washing
ton called on said Hicks and demanded payment
nF fhA aIA NH ard N.,t NJ h1~.l L.
left notice of the protest al the Office OF SAID de-
PENDANT, in this city that after the protest OF said
note, (say April 24th said Hicks paid the defend
ant further sum of $40, making, in ALL the sum of
Sllo; leaving a balance Of $685. and interest, still
due.
ST is commended on the part of the United
States, that the evidence aforesaid shows case
OF obtaining money by false pretences. The cases
cited in support Of The prosecution are cases be-
tween which and this case there is not the slight
est analogy They are transactions manifestly
unlawful from their inception to their consumma-
tion In each and every case cited there was a
clear and unmisiakable false pretense, and mani
fest intent 10 defraud; and money, or other prop
erty, obtained by the defendant from the prosecu-
tor, without giving any adequate or valuable con-
sideration; therefore none of the evidence pro-
duced shows false pretense or a Misrepresentation
having been made by defendant TO Hicks 10 in
duce him 10 make said payments. There is no
evidence that defendant ever asked said Hicks 10
pay MIN money on said note; and, in the absence
Of all proof of criminal intent, charity necessarily
and rresistbly brings the mind TO the conclusion
that the defendant made no false pretsnse.
"The next enquiry is, Was there an intent 10
defraud Hicks? The evidence is, that Mr.. Adams
shortly after the maturity of the note, called on
defendant with certified copy Of the receipts,
when he answered that he had not received half
the amount indicated never having received
more than i've dollars al time, excepting in a
single instance. The most that can be said OF this
Isl that il was prevarication, which he must have
known could be easily refuied, as he had, but a
few days before, signed the same piece OF paper
which Hicks had produced at the time Of making
each OF the aforesaid payments, which particularly
and explicitly pointed to the note in question; and
as the said defendant, being the payee OF said note
he may have received said payments intending 10
apply the same TO the liquidation thereof But
failing TO do SO, has necessarily brought upon him
the odium attached TO having a case criminal.
ly brought against him for obtaining money by
false pretences For had the money been paid as
II should have been by the defendant, this case
would never have been heard of Therefore, in
view of the facts, elected, the decisions referred
10 from the books, and the arguments both for the
| prosecution and defence, have come to the con
ciusion that the prosecution has failed 10 make
out strong case of probable cause, and shall dis
miss the defendant" ~. ~ s.-s,ss. =