Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-05-23
Misrepresentation OF Facts In
Business Deal Termed
Felony by Court
DECISION IN MISSOURI
Supreme Court of That State Says
Business Liars Are Liable for Fraud
and Penitentiary Sentence is the
Correct Method - Brick swindle
Case Is Decided.

jefferson City. Mo, May 23.-Liars in
business matters are vitality interest
ed in a decision handed down by the
supreme court Tuesday.
A man may lie in u business deal,
and If the lie is so absurd that COM
mon sense readily would disclose the
false representation he may escape the
penitentiary. If he misrepresents the
facts and obtains money thru methods
not readily comprehended he is guilty
of felony and will have to serve a
that if the person defrauded had in
vestgated thoroughly the manner OF
parting the victim from his money
he would not have been deceived. Rep
resentation made with II design to
cheat il felony.
The case in point was the prose-
cution by the state at ST. Louis of
Thomas p. Keyes. charged with OF
tanning money under false prctenses.
He was sentenced TO the penitentiary
for two years. July s, 1905, Keyes
sold twenty shares of the st. Louis
Brick Cement Manufacturing Com
pany to William Perry, a farmer from
Michigan. for $1,000, half of which
was paid in cash and the remainder
in notes and property. He represent
ed the plant was operated by steam
power, and had capacity of $4,000
bricks daily.
keyes had an office at sol Chestnut
street and had samples OF the brick
the company was supposed to manu-
facture. The evidence showed there
was a little machine at 1920 Chestnut
street operated by hand power which
turned out sample bricks purported
to be produced by the company in
which Perry invested.
Keyes is known as an old offender.
He has been prosecuted in Kansas
City and various other parts of the
state several times for such schemes.
The stock company he purported to
represent in st. Louis had no value
whatever. OF the purported capital Of
$4,000 some $4,000 was in patent of
no value. Keyes is now in the pea.
Tertiary.
May Curb Fraud.
Inc opinion III Ills CASE Is uesIIttiu
by the attorney general as being of
great Importance and without an en1
to the common practice of Obtaining
money by fraudulent representations
The feature of the opinion follows:
I'VE are aware of the extent to
which some courts have gone in an
nouncing the rule that it is no part of
the duty of court to interp ose and
protect the unduly credulous who are
willing to give credence to the asser-
lions of parties seeking to acquire
money or property. Ii the rule is to be
announced that money or property may
be obtained from citizen of this state
by another by means of false or frau
ddulent representations and with de-
sign to defraud unless the party to
whom such false and fraudulent rep
reservations are made makes an in
vestigation, we confess that such rule
would approach the adjustment of the
true purpose and spirit of the provision
of the statute
Quoting New York opinion Judge
Fox declared:
'"rhe statute is Designed to furnish
protection Of those who from undue
confidence in Others or ineSperience are
liable to become victims o. dishonest
or designing dealers.