Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-11-26
THE ISAAC INDUCEMENTS.

Judge Wilkins overrules the Demurrer
The Indictments for False Pretepsss and
Conspiracy Held to be Good.
At the session Of the district court yes
terday, Judge Wilkins delivered the follow
ing decision in the case of tho State against
Leopold lsaaos:
In the case of the Indictment against Leo
pold lsaaos for obtaining goods by false pre-.
lenses, it is claimed that the indictment is in.
sufficient in the first place, in that it did not
contain any oollo9uium in reference to the
purchase and sale OF goods; in the second
place that it does not state the terms and con-
ditions which the goods were parted With,
and that there is no distinct and positive allie
CATION that the parties claiming to have been
defrauded believed in tho false pretenses, and
parted with the property and the goods upon
The strength of them.
With reference to tho matter Of the colo.
quinn, I think 1t has never been the practice
in this State to set forth the facts in reference
to any treaty for a sale and purchase of goods;
in fact think the question has been ruled up.
on in this court and held not to be necessary
although in some one two of the States
believe the doctrine is tho other way.
With reference to the other objections find
that this Indictment IS substantially in the
form which has been used in very many of tho
this State. While it is, perhaps, not so par
tlcular as might be desired, think it comes
within the rule which holds On indictment to
be sufficient where it so sets forth the facts
constituting the offense as to give the defen-
dant an opportunity to prepare for his defense,
to enable the court % pass Judgment upon the
ofense, and to enable the defendant to plead
conviction acquittal in bar of any subse-
quent charge for the same offense. have con-
cluded therefore to override the demurrer to
that Indictment.
With reference to the indictment against
Isaacs and Others charging them with conspi-
raoy to cheat and defraud sundry persons
named in the Indictment out OF their good s
and chattes, this Indictment presents oues-
tions of great difficulty, and about which there
seems to be considerable conflict of decision.
1t seems to be generally held, however, that In
order to constitute conspiracy there must be
an unlawful combination to do some criminal
act or to accom- p!ish some indifferent acts by
means which are criminal. There are excep-
lions, undoubtedly, in certain cases, IA, for in
stance in the of com bination to seduce
and debauch a'female, in which, from consid-
erations of public policy, an indictment is
held to lie, even in States where seduction il
not criminal ofense. 1t is considered that
the safety of society depends largely upon the
purity and chastity of women, and that com BIZ
nations to seduce and denauch them are of
such evil consequences to society at large that
they held it to be an indictable offense.
In this case the defendants are charged with
combining and cOnfederating to cheat and de-
fraud the parties named in the indictment out
OF certain goods and chattels. It is not neces-
sarily criminal ofense to cheat and Gefraud.
1t may perhaps ut first blush shock the moral
sense by so declaring; but such is the law
There are certain cheats which are not crimi-
nal IN the eye of the law. It is the policy of
tbs la" to have tho party to protect himself BIZ
his own prudence or by a resort to the civil
courts where his prudence fails protect him
Now, whether indictment of this kind
could be made to hold-an indict uent charg.
ing persons with confederating to cheat and de-
determine at this time, but think it is alio W
able to charge com bination to cheat and de-
fraud as criminal offenso that tho means
by which the parties undertake to &C
complish their purpose, should be set forth.
1t appears to me that wit bout that, the de-
tendant has not proper means Of preparing for
his defense, and that be might find difficulty
ID case or conviction or acquittal upon sub
sequent charge for the same offeDse. In that
case, have determined to allow the dem urrer.
The next case is an Indictment against the
same parties, charging them with combining
and contederating TO accomplish a criminal
act, that IS desgnedly to obtain goods of an
other party by false and fraudulent pretenSes.
There are certain false and fraudulent preten-
ees set up. amongst which is that the said
Leopold 1saacs was engaged in legitimate aud
regular business. and that he was at the time
solvent and able to pay for such property
eaNow, those would be good allegations of
fraudulent pretenses in an Indictment for OBJ
tanning goods by false pretenses. 1t is true
that there arc other allegations of pretenses
which would not be good in such an indict-
ment. but these allegations are good. 1t is al
legged or claimed upon the part of the defend
ants, however, that they are not distinctly ne.
gatived as they would be required to be
In an indictment against parties tor obtaining
goods under false pretences
don t think it ia necessary in an action for
conspiracy, in reference to fraudulent pre-
lenses to be made thereafter, to negative the
pretenses in the manner and form in which
thsy are required to be negatived in an indiot-
ment for the otHense itself. 1t is alleged that
1T was their desi gn to obtain these upon the
false and fraudulent pretenses thereafter to be
made. l am inclined to think that. in connec-
tor with the other allegations in the indict-
1nent, is huficieut to constitute the
otense of conspiracy; that it fur
nishes the defendant with suf-
ficient knowledge to prepare for his defense;
and that upon conviction of or acqulttal ui-
der this indictment he will be prepared to
plead such defense upon any subsequent H.
dictment for the Same offense. shall there
fore hold that indictment to be good and over
rule the demurrer