Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-12-26

liberal statement of tie Ell ct OF that paper,
20 far as the defendant 10 concerned, because
u might, with Rreat propriety, be said that
the biil prepared by HIM, md which he knew
must form the basis of such proceedings az
would take place ia the fiscal der ariment NJ
the city, was direct statement on his purt
that Its contents we're true to each person
whose duty rendered Ii necessary for him To
eSatninb and act upon IL. II was this pro-
cee1ing, this pretence, which set the claim
In motion and formed. us already suggested,
the very founjatio of all that was subse-
1uenly done to ronsdmma,e the wrong de-
signed. lis nctual presence was not neces-
sary to accomplish the offence. lt was
sufficient, therefore, the intent to cheat and
deiraud existinR,tO accomplish the commits
sion OF the crime, that the bill influenced
the mayor to give his signature TO the war
rtlnt because it WAS the exclusive, as 1t was
the necessary, foundation upon which Hll
the esre onics to etfectuate IL rested. With
out the bill there won d have been no certlf-
cate, no audit, no warrant, and therefore no
act OF the mayor 1hs defendant was deal
ing with the funds of corporation to he
reached by cer,ain forms designed for the
security OF Its menners, and knew the mode
by which those forms cpu.d he applied. 4 he
hill was in effect, equivalent to n verbal rep
rhsentntlon therefore,
The same cRse WIS carried to tho Court of
Appeals, under the title of People vs. Oyer
GO W IL
CourG OF Appeals is still more emphatic or
this point on page 45S, where it says, after
| citing cernin cases, in which the false rep
resentation or Writing reached the victim
through the intervention of innocent third
pbries: However indirect or circuitUus the
channel by which 1t reaches lis destination,
when there, the person who gave it its direu-
ton and aim Is SO there by the iDstru.
inent used to effect his purpose. Its bare
presenre, although neither examined or read
ny the mayor, was false preteuce. 1t did
deceive him. 1t did procure his signature; 1t
said TO him by Its mere presence that it vas
an honest claim awaiting payment, when in
trntn.it waa bold fraud. Stimulating honesty
to procure warrant for sum, no part of
which was dua
See also Commonwealth vs. Sweet, 4 Pa.
Dist, kepts., 1916; Roberts VS.. TIE People, .
Colo, A5s.
So that, 1t may be safely affirmed as a
princip of law. based upon comiIon sense,
iounued In reason and supported by
authority, TINT false pretence, which has
ultimately accomp Ished its purpose of
irauduently obtaining money or other prop
erty, will follow md taipt With fraud every
stop in the transaetiunsi its inception to
IT'S conclusion, however circutous its route,
or however many agencies 1t may use.
With this explanation OF what constitutes
false pretence, you are next to inquire
whether the false pratence, II any such was
made by the defendant, was made with in
tent to cheat and uetraud the said Horace
q. Rettew, receiver of taxes and county
treasurer.
II you believe from the evidence thnt his
intent was tu obtain money from Horace q.
l.ettew. receiver of taxes and county treas
rrer as aforesaid. by mhHns of bill which
Q knew to befalse and fraudulent; for work
aud labor which he knew had never been
rendered, then such .ialse pretence would
infant
said Horace q. hettew, receiver of taxes ana
county treasurer, and would sustain the In
dictment upon this point. Such intent is
not presumed in law, but must be proved,
Gnd is question for you TO determine from
all the acts and representations of the de-
PENDANT In the transaction, ms shown by the
evidence.
Again, IL you should be satisfied from the
evidence that the defendant made such false
pret2nce, with such intent to cheat and de-
fraud as above defined, then your next step
will be to ascertain whether he did by such
false pretence, actually obtain the money of
Horace g. Rettew, receiver of taxes ana
comfy treasurer aforesaid. id
II is upon this point of the casH that the
most serious controversy has arisen, and
earnest and able arguments have been made
both by the attorney general and by counsel
for the defendant.
TheGelendant insists: ny That the money
was not obtained from Horace q. Rettew,
receiver of taxes and county treasurer, but
from the Farmers Bank at Wilminston; that
the county fund being deposited under the
statute In the bank to the credit of the
general funds OF the bank, IL became the
money of the bank, and thereby Rettew lost
possession and control of that money.
(2l That as the money was deposited In
the bank by Horace q. Rettew, as county
treasurer, II could in nowise be the money
E.E IL s.Nr 81 sART AawaR - fnaT
and county treasurer; the receiver of taxes
and the county treasurer being two distinct
officers. ,.
49, Generally, that Horace q. Rettew.
receiver of taxes and county treasurer, had
no sucli property in or possession or control
| of the money as to warrant the laying " In
the indictment as his property.
The State controverts all these propsi-
| tions.
This contention involves the construction
of CHAPTER 26th, Vol. XIX, Delaware Laws,
| u assed at Dover April 2Sth, 1891 (Code, 40,
| &c.l, as to the office and powers of the
| receiver of taxes and county treasurer.
We have carefully examined this statute,
and without setting out In detail the DIFF
| ferent clauses bearing upon these points,
| now state the following conclusions as
clearly growing out of the terms OF the
| satute:
i. That the words receiver OF Ia xes and
| county treasurer" 20 not describe two dis
| tinct officers. but constitute the ~ oner legal
| titls of the person occupying one oi1ice, Who
Is properly described in the indictment rs
the receiver of taxes and county treasurer; :"
constituting one Office one officer, with
varied duties under ths statute.
2. That under he statute, such officer Is
not only the receiver of taxes, with au hority
to receive and deposit moneys arising from
taxes. &c. in the Farmers Bank at Whining
ton to his credit as county treasurer; but that
Ii
| which can only bB drawn and obtained
under the Inv by warrants drawn upon him
as sIch receiver Of taxes and county
treasurer, made, signed aud countersigned
as required by law.
8. we hold, under the law, therefore, that
as such disbursing officer, he has such con
troll and possession OF the county funds, ano
such property therein as to sustain the In
dictment, laying the proDerty In the money
in question in him as receiver of taxes ano
county treasurer.
With respect to his control and possession
Of, and property in, the county funds afore
said, you are to be governed by the law a.
we are now interpreting it to you; inasmucf
as the extent of his possession and contro
in such county funds Is matter OF law
under the statute. as interpreted by TIL
court, and cannot be determined by thu
opinion of the said Horace q. Rettew, what
soever that opinion may be. We say 10 you
that tina possession and control of the none!
and the property therein, was properly laic
in such receiver of taxes and county treasure
in the Indictment.
II is uuquestionably true. as claimed b,
, the defendant, that generally where none!
is deposited in bank, and mixed with tn
unds of the bank, it becomes the money o
, the bank, Nevertheless, when the count
, funds aforesaid have been deposited 10 tn
Farmers Bank at Wilmington as prescribel
by law. and when q specific sum Is separates
J | and appropriated by said bank or its agent
4 | So tha :, a INFANT 0F anp such warrant m IN