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

OF such approval OF sand bill by such comp.
troller and OF the passing and approval oil
said bill by such Levy Court ths said John
Lynn obtained the county warrant intro.
duced in evidence in this case, and tina,
John Lynn obtained by means of such
county warrant the sum OF S5j out OF the
money In the custody and control OF Horact
u. Rettew, the receiver of taxes and coun ~
treasurer of New Castle county, then in
contemplation OF the law the said John
Lynn obtained the said sum Of $50 from the
said Horace q, Retiew, receiver of taxes
and county treasurer by false pretences; ioi
no matter how circuitous the route of the
said bill and of tho said county warrant
drawn in consequence theteuf, the original
ihlse pretenoe made to tho snid county comp
troller, II the jury believes TINT such false
pretences we're in TACT SO made 10 such
county comptroller, were, in contemplation
Of the law, present at each stage OF che
route OF such bill ind warrant until tine
money was obtained on such warrant.
a. When an indictment for cheating hy
falsn pretences alleges Inst the money OF
goods were obtained by several specified iulse
pretences, 1t is not necessary to prove all oil
the false pie.ences charged hut proof oil
any one of such ialse pretenees to the salts
faction OF the jury, and that the money OF
goods were obtaited thereby Is sufficient
o. That whether or not John Lynn in-
tended to cheat ana detraud the receiver of
taxes and county treasurer OF New Castle
county out Of the money specified in the
Indictment or OF any part thereof, may be
inferred by tho jury from all of the acts OF
John Lynn and all the facts and circum-
stances OF the case which may have been
proven to the satisfaction of the jury.
Z. That rnder the aw of this State de-
timing the custody and control OF the receiver
oil taxes and county treasurer OF moneys
held by him by virtue of his Office, such
receiver of taxes and county treasurer mas
q FNVN Is s..h
moneys as constitute him proper person,
Ia his official capacity as receiver of taxes
ana county treasurer ia whom property may
ne lnid OF such moneys in this case.
q. Where the testimony OF witnesses is
conflicting, IL is the duty of the jury to
reconcile such testimony II they can do so (;
and il they are unable to reconci.e such
testimony, they should accept the testimony
oil such of said conflicting witnesses as they
tiay deem under all the circumstances, most
worthy OF belief.
/ PRAYERS oFTHE DEFENCE.
The prayers OF the defence are as fol-
lowe:
The defendant, In the above stated cause
hy his attorneys, arays the court to instruct
the Jury in said cause as follows:
That they lind verdict of not gully.
The offence charged In the indictment in
this cause Is purely statutory one TN
must be construed strictly, both in its
words and spirit,
That no irregularity, ignorance of the
law, Illegal act, or even reprehensihle con-
quot, short OF false pretence, concocted
purposely with the intent to defrand. Is
sufficient to conviction under this indict-
ment,
That in order to constitute the statutory
offence of obtaining money, &c, by tnlse
pretences the following requisites are neces-
sary and must concur:
| The pretence must be a false representa-
tion as to some past or existing factand cir.
cunstAnces, ana not q mere expression OF
| opinion. OF a PROMISE.
The false protences must be proved as laid
in the indictment. The gist OF tho offence
oil obtaining money under false pretept &c,
under the statute of this State, is The IL
tention to cheat and defraud; unless In
this cause the intention 10 cheat and de raud
as laid in the Indictment is sufficiently es.
tablished by the evidence to the satisfaction
OF the jury beyond reasonable doubt the
defendant Is entitled ~ n verdict of not
guilty
The question of intent is not presump-
tion OF law, but a question which must be-
submitted by the court to the jury. Being
a secret operation OF the mind. it can be
ascertained only by the acts and representa-
tions Of the party.
That they must be satisfied by the evidence
In ihs case beyond reasonable DOUBT that
| the alleged IA se pretenca Nas not only relied
upon the said Horace Il. Rettew, from
whom the inoncy is alleged to have been
Obtained, hut they must be satisfied beyond
q reasonable doubt that II prevailed upon
him that 1t was the moving cause, that his
| mind was affected by It,, and that he parted
1 with the n oney induced by IL and believing
in it's truth, before they can convict this de-
| fendnnt. 7ata
That II they believe that Horace g. Rettev
was not induced by the pretence laid in the
| Indictment or would have paid the said
order II the pre.encs had not been made,
tlien their verdict must be not guilty. II
they believe that the said order was cHshed
simply because 1t was Issued by the Levy
| Court ana presented to The said Horace u,
Rettew as valid order for payment and
not because of the pretehce, they cannot
convict the defendant.
That II the defendant obtained the money
alleged in the indictment without making
any false preteDces to Horace g.. Rettew, he
being Ignorant OF the same, their verdict
should be not guilty.
That the false pretence must be sufIi-
ciently proxiDlate to the obtaining of the
thing. in order to make 1t indictable, and
therefore II it be too remote or was not the
direct cause of the obtaining OF the thing
the offence is not Committed.
lhat the alleged false pretences charged
in the Indictment have been made to George
ID. Kelley and the, alleged cheating and de-
irauding, having been practiced upon
another person, to wit, Horace q. Reitew,
the false preiences were not sufficiently
proxinate to the obtaining OF the money to
warrant this jury in conyicting the de-
PENDANT.
The defendants prayers repeat the ale
CATION that the word person does not
apply 10 the county government, and say
further:
That before the jury can convict under
THIS Indictment the identity OF the money
must be established by such proof as will
indtviduRte it from any other money
mat II 1t appears to the satisfaction OF
the Jury that at the tune the de endnnt OBJ
tanned the money that the Levy Court was
indebted to the defendant for work and
labor done to the amount of the said bill,
4 then their verdict should be not guilty.
That tho law presnmes that the defendant
is innocent, and no public clanior, nur even
the TACT that the grand jury has found an
Indictment against him, rebu.s this pre-
sumption. They may only find verdict
OF guilty upon sufficient competent evidence.
Prayers were also maze as to reasonable
doubt and the necessity of proving every
material point in the allegation, and further
That they must consider the evidence of
the defendants good character, and in this
case, where the intent with which the de.
iendant obtained the money, is q very ma
terlal element of the charge against him,
that evidence is entitled to great weight.
A great throng OF persons heard
the closing arguments Friday after
noon. mani esting the deepest
interest in the addresses OF the four
attorneys who haVs fought the case
inch by inch since it's opening on
Wednesday. Realizing that the i'm.
portant witness on the part of the
State was LRwrsnce M, Whitemap. thu