Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-20
DECISIONS OF THE ,UPREmE COURT
Opinions of the Supreme Court OF the
State of Tennessee, at IacksOns April
Term, 1859.

Term, 1850.
C. n. Roberts vs.. The State
The indictment and conviction in this was for
obtaining twenty dollars in bank notes. by false pre-
tences under the Code, article o. page S44. The
term of Imprisonment was fixed at seven years.
Cod !. section 40: Every person who by any false
pretence or by any false token or counterfeit letter
with intent to defraud another, obtains from any
person any personal property, on the signature OF
any person to any written statement the false max
ing of which is forgery, shall, on conVlcuon, &c'
The difficulty made upon this section Is entirely OBJ
waited by changing the word to Of, in the third
line after the word property, which was evident
ly intended must be regarded as clerical error, or
misprint 1t vroulc be nonsense as 1t stands, and
must be read with the change suggested. 1t would
then so read as to make the obtaining of proper
~ including money, " obtaining" the name OF
one to an instrument. by false preenceS tokens or
counterfeit letters felony This last branch OF the
OeEce is not in the act OF 1877 Dut IL Is ceftShE
an Improvement of it. This reformation of the Ian.
guage CT the act by changing the word ION" to of
Is indispensable to make il intelligible.
1t Is insisted that if the plaintiff in error and his
accomplish Smith, whose case is not now before US
are guilty of an offence it is that of passing cOun-
terfeit coin and not the offence charged This pO-
stion is correct if it applies, we have heretofore
held 1t was net intended by the act OF 1917, or the
Code sec. 47Ol, to cover or give new 10 the then
| existing and long established offence OF passing
counterfeit money but to create new felony. so
if the crime here consisted of passing counterfeit
coin for goods or bank notes, the conviction would
be erroneous because that it Is not the charge in the
| indictment.
These are the facts as stated by the prosecutor,
| Stephen Gibson.
"On February, 1859, he at boarding house,
| near the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Depot,
| in company with two gentlemen from Arkansas;
| that while conVersing with them, the defendant,
Roberts, came up to them ald Joined in the CONVEX
satiUn He told the defendant Roberts, that he was
| from Arkansas, and stranger in Memphis Rob
| erts spoke of the dangers to be apprehended by
strangers from PickpOckets. thieves and swlndlerG
| who infested the depot and atty that they all walk
ed over to the depot still talking about thieves, &c
| that soon after they had reached the depot and
| were standing near the lamps. VIM. Smith, who Is
Jointly indicted came up to where they were stand
ing and asked Roberts if he could change for him
q $50 gold piece Roberts said he did not know, but
would look and see, and pulled out his porte monte
and examined it, and said he could not but perhaps
| the gentleman from Arkansas could give him the
| change Witness then said he believed he could
and walked to the light with Roberts and Smlth
waen he prlled out his pOcket-boOk, and took there
from two five dollar bills, one on an Alabama bank
and the other South Carolina bank, and ter
dollar bill on the Bank of Tennessee, and handed
the same TO Smith, who thereupOn handed witness
what he at first took TO be a twenty dollar golc
piece, but which was in fact piece of suspicious
me al about the size of a twenty dollar gold piece
which was the color of gold, and upon one side
could not be distinguished, without clear inspection
from genuine gold coin, but on examination of TIT
other side it could be easily and clearly discovered
to be an advertisement and did not pwrport to be gOb
! coin" Smith Immediately made off with the banl
bills before witness had inspected the metal, which
he at once discovered to be base metal but cOull
not overtake Smith. The defendant denied havin;
any acquaintance with smith, but made his escap
/ while the prosecutor went after policeman. The.
! were roth soon after arrested Both had in posses
| sion the same kind of metal pieces passed to prose
| cutnr The proof leaves no doubt of the completely
of Roberts with Smith, or the guilt of bDtn.
/ This was not counterfeit coin it did not purpOT
| to be representation of gold c0in when examined
but a false imitation of it only on side. II wa
, | a trick and base cOntrivance and a false pretenc
, | 10 obtain money or property fraudulenty. This OF
lection then cannot be maintained
Again it is insisted that the imposition could haV
been easily detected by ordinary care, and therefor
It does not constitute the offence charged. This do
no. fall within that class of contained IN tn
books referred to. Ii calculated to deceive. an
did deceive under the circumstances. The tins
Mace and circumstances, all to be taken int
view in determining ths question. Only one side {
/ the metal was presented and that by dim ligh
and that in the hurry and confusion of the mOmeT
was calculated to deceive and accomplish the frau
= nj mt purDoses We are not disposed to carry tn
defanre TO the extent of some Of the relied NJ
on to screen the guilt thief from the penalty of tn
law for this most deteslable species OF larceny
}, The trick must be obvious and palpabe to oTdinar
L observation the circumstances all considered, I
: I constitute this offence.
; The conviction il well sustained by the law an
evidence and the judgment is affirmed.
o CARCTHERs.