Case Name: PEOPLE v. UEBELMESSER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-06-18
Citations: 153 N.Y.S. 1051
Docket Number: No. 7400
Parties: PEOPLE v. UEBELMESSER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 153
Pages: 1051–1058

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. UEBELMESSER.
(No. 7400.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 18, 1915.)
Criminal Law <3=1169—Harmless Error—Admission oe Evidence.
Where the evidence, properly admitted, conclusively showed that a con- ■ viction was just, the admission of alleged incompetent evidence, if error, was harmless.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 754, 3088, 3130, 3137-3143; Dec. Dig. <3=1169.]
Dowling, J., dissenting.
^=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Court of General Sessions, New York County.
Charles R. Uebelmesser was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree, and appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1134.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Martin W. Littleton, of New York City, for appellant.
Robert S. Johnstone, of New York City, for the People.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
I feel constrained to vote for an affirmance of this conviction notwithstanding the admission of the testimony as to the value or lack of value of the New Jersey lots. It is quite true that Uebelmesser did not make any specific representations to the complaining witness as to the value of the lots given as security for the money invested in the fraudulent enterprise, and that he said that it was not worth the amount of the stock subscribed for, but the mere fact that it was given as security for a substantial sum of money invested in the enterprise, and that Uebelmesser stipulated that the lots were to be redeeded, implied a representation that the lots were worth something. In point of fact it was shown that they were worth nothing, or practically nothing. This, I think, may fairly be classed as a false and fraudulent representation tending to establish the fraudulent character of the enterprise into which the complaining witness was induced to put his money. To be sure there was more than ample evidence of the fraudulent nature of the scheme outside of the testimony concerning the value of the lots, and it may be said that that testimony was unnecessary. But I cannot say that its admission, even if it had better been left out, is a sufficient error to require the reversal of a most just conviction.
The judgment should be affirmed.
INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concur.