The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-08-08

the defendant, you must find all three
of these elements, under the evidence,
When You reach the jury room, there
fore, you will take up. and answer, under
the evidence, the following three ques,
!. Bid John T. Van cleef obtain, as
knowingly or d~esignedly' on or about
:. Ii he did, did he obtain it by color
5. If he did.' did he DO it with intent
to cheat or defraud the state?
IMMATERlAL- POINTS,.
Upon your consideration of the first
question above p~ropounded OF oplalnlhg
the possible notion that the
State was bound to establish hat he OBJ
tanned the money personally from the
state TreaS9rer This J ssnt was not from at t h.s
State by his agent or defendants re-
quest. authority or direction, and sub
sequently paid to him, it is sufficient to
class of crimes, known as misdemeanors,
all persons who knowingly or designedly
aid or assist in the commission of the
offense are principals.
1t is not at all material, either. in your
consideration of this point, whether the
actual money received from the State by
MaeCrelrish & Quigley, in whose name
the bill. was presented, was turned over
in precisely the same form as received
to Van Cleef.
Q1lSlCE say . In Ddlu tdH Atet1 Tic
money for the maps, $500, and took Van
Cleef's receipt therefor, showing the pay
ment was for the $500 maps claimed to
have been furnished by him to the
State.
This, is sufficient to charge Van Cleef
with having obtained the money.
fendant obtain the money from the State
by color of a false p~retense? it is neces-
sary for you, to understand what is
meant in law by false pretense.. 1t may
he nlfned as q also or fro t12f11on% a
r~esentation or statement of an existing
or past fact. made with knowledge of
its falsity. and with the intent to deceive
part with money or property of value.
QUESTIONS FOR jury.
The court would, not have you misled
his argument to the jury that Van Cleef
made any representation to the State
for which he could be held, because his
receipt to Quigley bears date the day
following the payment of the money.
This matter of receipt you may. Of
course. consider, and give It such weight
viii also recall the testimony Of Quig-
ley as to his previous conversation and
arrangement with Van Cleef before the
bill was presented, and the subsequent
presentation to the State OF the two
bills in Van Cleef's own handwriting.
Now. if Quigley was acting in this
transaction as the agent Of Van cleef
the State it is the same in lawgsaseL if
Van Cleef had made them personally.
Upon the third point suggested whether
it was done by the defendant with in
tent to cheat or defraud the State, the
law says that the intent to defraud is an
essential part of the offense. It is a
question for the jury to determine. SUCH
intent may be inferred from the guilty
act, if such there be, deliberately per-
formed. If a man knowingly does an
act unlawful in itself and 1t produces
the harm intended, the law concllsively
infers the criminal intent. The law pre-
sumes that the natural, necessary and
even probable consequences were intend
ed by the author of the act.
Now. the burden of proving the allie
cations in the Indictment is upon the
prosecution and the State must prove
nave been made. but also their falsity
proof that the representations were
made does not charge the burden to the
defendant of proving their truth.
If upon a careful review of all the
evidence, you ask your own inward con-
science. is he guilty. and it answers, l
doubt if he Is, you should acquft. But, if
should say so by your verdict.
ACQUITTED.
The jury in the case of Colonel Van
Cleef came into court this morning at
1850 O'clock with a verdict of not guilty
of the charge of obtaining money from
the State under false p%retenses as
charged in the indictment.
Colonel Van Cleef was in court when
the verdict was given, and was con.
whom We're also in the court room.
Colonel Van Cleef was in .he hapniest
mood and shook hands with several of
the Jurors.