Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-23
STATE V. EENICK.
supreme Court of Oregon.
February 2S. ism

WHERE MARRIED MAN PRE-
TENDED. UNDER a FICTITIOUS
NAME, TO AN UNMAIiRIED WO-
MAN. THAT HE WAS SINGLE.
AND THUS TOGETHER WiTu \
PROMISE TO MARRY HER. OBJ
TANNED MONEY FROM HER; HE
WAS NOT \ FALSE TOKEN AND
WAS NOT GUILTY OF OBTAINING,
MONEY BY MEANS OF y FALSE
TOKEN.
Renicll was indicted for obtaining
money under false prctcnscs. lie de-
INJURED TO the :udictmeEt. The lower
court decided in his favor and th.
state appealed. The indictment CHARGES
thht the defendant willfuily ana feion-
iOusly, with intent to defraud, by means
Oh Il certain false token. to wit, him
sell, falsely and fraudulentiy presented
h!msell TO one Carrie Meyer an UNI
married woman pretending that he was
oHvCharlos Smith aud unmarried and
Was IN Il position to lawfully marry.
while IN truth he was married and was
not Charles Smith, by means Of which
l'iSe token. &C, coupled with Il prom
use to marry her. lie did then ami there
oh ain from said Carrie Meyer certain
money described in the Indictment.
The court says:
II is claimed that the money was OBJ
tanned by false preteuses, through and
by use OF u false token, and that the
use by defendant of himself as such
ialsc token was sufficient in law to
constitute the ofrense. This presents The
only question to be determined The
case at bar is probably not q false per-
sonatlon, by reason OF the fact that the
ociendant did not assume to rcpresen;
reti parsonage, but only ma de use OF
fictitious name having no application
10 any one. But il is contendod that h.,
Is guilty of a false prctensc By The U.S..
OF himself as Il token.
Nov, We're The representations which
inc defendant made to the prosecutrix
moe IMAM wicked falschoods, under our
statute, or may II be affirmed thai his
presence v'hcn utLcring the falsehoods
was tho exhibition of II false privy to-
ken. which Induced her TO part with
her money and assisted him in perpc-
tratinS the fraud. lie may have been
both liar. and he symbol of liar. bil,
ne himself. considered as token, did
rot contribute, by reason OF his per-
sonal appearance, to the deception Tn
der our Statute, the pratansc must H..
accompanied with a false toiicn. ana
the question presented here is Nhotler
defendant was himself u false Priv TO-
ken. We think he was not. lie did not
attempt 10 aSSimilate anything in OK
lStence. There are no personal or ply
sical characteristics known to social
$1,000 VIM Guy an NNiN3if.r1 man
may be distinguished from one thai is
married. So that if man presents; his
rhYsicn! self to another person. and
says nothing of his marital state. no
one can say whether he at that in
stani IS M rriod or single. from the in
spection alone. Testimony mus; be
produced dehors tho person from which
to determine the fact. Ii he says his
name Is Charles Smith. fictitious
character. and thnt he is unmarried.
when he had Il wife living, this is mere
dcscriptio personae, and an insnec ion
Of tho person will neither corroborat e
nor detract from the statement. If he
IT UtTTOTTTrHTrCU II TUkTTI, md rTITT
token" is false. it is only made So by
the lie he has uttered: his physical cy-
istcnce does not help TO establish it. Ir
other words he has not aes'milated any
thing of real existence whereby the un-
wary have been deceived. He did utter
n wicked fa!sehood. and this is false
prcterse. but The false token is want
ing. and therefore the Indictment does
not charge 4 crime. 1t is necessary 10
specify the false token in the indict-
mont and this the state has not done.
Affirmed.