Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1878-05-17

B.. n. smith ". the State.
Plaintiff Ii error Nas convicted IN the
Circuit uOUitOf Rankin county; Of obtain.
ing g~oOdsuuder false pE0tensos, and sen.
tenoed q three years confinement In the
RenitentiAry.
The false preteuses alleged, were four
IN number = lst-That he had q good crop:
7d-That he had, or would make, seven Of
eight bales Of cotton; 8d-Tbat he had
traded with no one during the year; Alb
tbat he owed no debts,save one 10 the party
to whom be made the representations, and
one OF $50 10 . person In Trenton, 6mtth
county, In which county he lived, As TO
the first statement, tO.Wtt: that he had q
good crop, It was neither negauved In the
Indictment, nor by the evidence, and may.
therefore be ~dlsFegafded. As 10 the sec.
ODD, tO.wlt: that be had, or would make,
seven or eight bales OF cotton, 1t Was
tharged 10 the Indictment IN the altarna
tive, was at most q matter OF opinion
&c TO the probable yield OF his
then growing crop, aud IL 10 not
shown 10 have been either q false or
unreasonable expectation on his part,
On all Of these grounds 1t must be lett out
OF view. The third and fourth pretenses,
IS ~ his not having traded elsewhere, and
as 70 his existing indebtedness, were
properly laid In the indictment, and were
sustained by the proof. Plaintiff In error
was q man OF small means, engaged In
farming on . limited scale. His usual
crop, with q favorable yield, amounted an-
nually TO sig or seven bales OF cotton. On
the 9Th Of August, ls1e, he opepCd ac-
counts With thee different n rchants In
Norton, Scott county, making purchases
from enc Of them on that day, to the
amount Of SI7.8, besides smaller amounts
from the other two, Four days alterwaTd,
be appeared In Brandon, Rankin cOunty,
and applied for credit 10 the prosecutors
In this case. he was closely questioned
81 to his means and Indebtedness. He
stated that his crop was good, that he
would make seven or eight bales Of cot
ton, that he was ttEding WITH, Or purchAs.
ing supplies from, no other merchant, aud
that with the exception Of . amall Dots
held against him By the prosecutors, and
the aum Of ~ due In Trenton, be owed
no debts. On the faith ottheSe statements
an account Was opened with him, and on
that day he purchased eeveHty.hVe d0llats
worth Of goods on . credit. He came
back twice AIteFWard within Q few weeks,
and increased the Indebtedness to one
hundred And afty dollars
On one Of these Oo"aslons the libeFAlity
Of hls purchases attrA ted At entiOn, and
each time he was questioned anew. Each
dmn uG ANpbAbGN WIN eaA ugNbhG9u W
former statements. During all this tim
he vas purchasing also 10 Morton. The
result was that within six weeks he bought
in Morton and Brandon together, goods 10
the amount Of ak hundred dollars, which
was considerably more than q full CROP
would usually have yielded him.
10 point OF fact, he seems to have made
less than two bales OF cotton, but this was
partly owing to an early and disastrous
irost. AIMING bis urchases he lie shown
to have bought i've barrels Of -four In lit 9
more than u month. Within six wee 9 At.
ter the date OF his last putCh Use from the
prosecutors, he went into voluntary bank
ruptcy, and non Of his creditors we G paid
anything We think these facts fairly sup
port the verdict OF guilty II no errors o.
law w. 70 committed on the trial 10 his
prejudice. We will notice the assignments
vi error discussed by counsel.
| There WIS NJ error In refusing a con
tinuatiln No SUBJ ,enas had been ISSUED
iur the absent witnesses, and no eXcus,
was offered for tbs failure to do so.
. There was no error In setting aside
tn. juror Musely. We do not agree viii
the learned Judge below, In the opinion
that the Juror claimed his exemption b.
stating that be would prefer ~ attend 4
his private business, while saying AZ tht
same time, that nevertheless, he was will
, ing tn serve and did not claim bis exemp
ton; bit we do agree with him In doubt
> ing whether the party was an lmpOrtan
juror. Though be stated that he hat
neither formed nor expressed an opinion
he admitted that he was a a ighbOr OF thI
accused, tnat he had heard the matte
} much discussed, that the accused hat
come by bic house that morning and 10
/, formed him that the trial was 10 come Of
that day, that thereu on be had come I
! town, aud that he was under strong per
} sOnal as we'll az pecuniary obligations :
the accused, and TO other parties indicteI
= Tor the same Ohense.
1t was held 10 Mitlulre's case, that ID
Judge mig { set aside ajuror who had bee
accep ed by both sides, upon diFcOverin
= that be was under Indictment for an OI
. fense similar to the one to be tried, thong
this formed under the statute, no grOun
OF chAll .nge. We vail not DISTURB the Vel
. dict here, on account Of the action OF III
: Court In this matter. Mcclure vs. Th
state, 81 Miss $50.
3 There was no error Ia laying betOr
: the Jury. the itemIZed accounts Of the Al
y cused with the merchants 10 Morton Th
question ut issue, was whether the accuse
a mad knowingly, ielOniOusly aud frauni
lently mode false statements, tntendip
thereby - obtain < ode upon the faith
II such statements, and had actually SO oil
tanned them.
Q The statements were that he was M
q trading else where, aud was not iudebts'
: Everything which tended either to shu
their alsity or to establish the wilt
fraud committed 10 utteTing them, WI
competent.
4. There was no error in the instruction
for the State .
5. The hrst instruction asked for d
10 PENDANT was prprerly refused, II sOugl
- to draw q distinction between the gOOC
" obtained on the trst day and those Their
alter procured, and to refer the deliver
ofthese latter, ~ the contract made on Il
~ hrst day by the prosecutors n supply Il
a accused with goods during the year, rathI
than 10 the false pretsnces which had
10 duced that contract.
v II there 10 any sound distin I'll q b
tween goods directly obtained by a Ial
p" pref, uce and goods obtained under q CO
te ira into which the seller b q been e
trapped by q false pretence, ~ was he
., in Regina va. Gardner, Dearly and BE
A. &. G., ~ 1875, but which seems to be d
. uied In 2 WhRrt0n's CIR. Law, section IL
3. nth editiOn) the dist nciiOn is OF
M moment here, because II 10 shOwn that
the case At mar, the accused was questiu
f. ed Over at the time OF each purchase, al
each time repeated the false %pretenses.
II is evident from the testimony, tn
unless be had d, ne so, he would not ha
he OBJ aimed tho further supp y OF goods, a
therefore their dealing must be- reieTr
VI 10 tho false pretences thus repeatC