Court Opinion

ID: 9776925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:48:54.435768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:34.385764
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I cannot agree to the affirmance of this case.
Mrs. Audrey Karraker, the owner of Audrey’s Ready to Wear, testified that appellant appeared at her place of business and purchased from her merchandise of the value of $30.95, for which he executed in her presence a customer’s draft for the amount of $60.95. The $30 difference represented that amount of cash that she gave to the appellant.
*435The draft was as follows:
“RIVER OAKS STATE BANK
“CUSTOMER’S DRAFT
“Houston, Texas, 12 - 28 - 1955
“Member Federal
“Deposit Insurance
“Corporation
“PAY TO THE ORDER OF
AUDREY’S READY TO WEAR $60.95/100
“SIXTY--- 95/100 ---DOLLARS
“value received and charge to with exchange
“account of
“TO SO MAIN STATE
“HOUSTON, TEXAS VIC L. KING
“2322 Branard — JA-8-9774”
Reference is made in the record to that instrument as being a check, which Mrs. Karraker says was drawn on the “South Main State Bank” and which she says the appellant represented was good and would be paid on presentation to the above named bank.
The so-called check was presented to that bank and was not paid.
If for no other reason, non-payment of the draft was justified because it was not drawn on the “South Main State Bank.” Such being true, that bank would have no authority to honor the draft for payment out of any funds belonging to the appellant. Moreover, the instrument was not a check but, to the contrary, was a draft subject to acceptance by the drawee at its pleasure.
The injured party saw the draft written and of necessity knew that it was not a check drawn upon the South Main State Bank, of Houston, Texas, but that it was a draft drawn upon “So Main State,” whatever that meant.
All the evidence in this case shows that the injured party knew at the time she accepted the draft and parted with her property that it was not a check on any bank but a blank draft drawn upon “So Main State” and that the injured party therefore knew that the representations upon which she said she relied were false. Nickson v. State, 147 Texas Cr. Rep. 316, 180 S.W. 2d 161.
*436One who parts with both title and possession of property cannot rely upon representations which are known to be false or where the means at hand with which the falsity might be known are not used or any effort made to ascertain the truth.
Here, the injured party knew — or by looking at the draft, could have known — that it was not valid; that it was drawn on no bank; and that appellant’s representations to the contrary were necessarily false and untrue.
The criminal laws of this state touching theft by false pretext and swindling are for the protection of those who are cheated and defrauded of their property by false and fraudulent representations. They are not for the protection of those who take a chance or risk, knowing that the representations made them are not true, and then, after that risk or chance goes against them, seek relief in criminal courts.
I dissent.