Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-02-18
FRAUDULENT CHECKS

There Is a fraudulent check case
In the magistrates court in Spartan
burg, and Magistrate Wetmore before
whom the case Is to be tried this
afternoon, has given his view Of the
law as follows:
The object of this statute, passed
In 1903, was to cover cases that
could not be reached under the exist
Ing law by prosecution for obtain
ing goods under false pretense, for
under that statute, II was necessary
to show that the defendant made
false representations, knowing them
TO be false, and it is very rare
thing that any representations at all
are ever made on giving a check.
Under the statute above set forth
the essential elements Of the crime
are: First, that check be given and
no funds to meet the same are at the
bank. Second, that the person In
Whom the check was given parted
with the money or something of value
at the time the check was givon, or
that he postponed some remedy
which he had against the one giving
the check. In other words, the parry
to whom the check Is given must be
left In worse condition by .-eason
OF having accepted the check than
he was before the check was given.
II one goes into a store to buy a
suit Of clothes and gives a check in
payment of the same and the check
turns out to be worthless, 1t Is a plain
example Of violation of the statute.
But II the suit Of clothes had been
bought on credit and afterwards a
check was given to pay the debt the
statute would not be violated for the
merchant in such a case would have
lost nothing by reason of having ac-
cepted the check, for he would be In
exactly the same position as he was
before the check was given. To
carry the illustration further: II
when the suit of clothes was bought
on credit the buyer had given a mort
gage to the merchant to secure the
payment Of same and then had af-
terwards given check to pay the
debt and the merchant had given up
his mortgage on receiving the check,
the statute would clearly be violated,
for In that case the merchant would
have been left in worse condition
inasmuch as he had given up his
security for the check
TO carry the illustration still
further: Suppose the suit of clothes
had been bought on open account
which had become due, and the mer-
chant had gone to the purchaser and
said. If you don't pay me this ac-
count am going to sue you,' and the
purchaser gave him a check, dated
ahead, which induced the merchant
to forbear from suing him. Such
would be clear example Of a viola
ton Of the statute, because the mer-
chant had postponed his remedy,
which he had against him and was
placed in a worse position by reason
of the loss Of time he had suffered
that might have been spent In re-
ducing the claim to judgment.
1.-The statute Is very simple and
plain and easily understood, except
ing as to the proviso. Does the pro
viso mean that the person who has
given the check has thirty days af-
ter prosecution within which to set
tie and stop prosecution? Or does it
mean that no prosecution will lie
until after thirty days have ex-
pired after giving the worthless
check? Note the language of the
statute, the prosecution shall be dis
continued A thing can not be dis
continued until 1t has begun, and
how can prosecution be begun un-
til a crime has been committed? II
a crime has been committed a trial
and conviction can Immediately fol-
low. On conviction the prosecution
has ended, and the sentence begun
after sentence, which has not been
from, nothing except par
don can discontinue it."