Bracey v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Bracey v. State

64 Miss. 26

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 Miss. 26 (Bracey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bracey v. State, 64 Miss. 26 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

If Williams acted honestly, and Bracey received none of the money paid for the certificates, as assumed in the first instruction given for the State, Bracey could not properly be convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses.

In order to convict him of the offense charged, it was necessary that the money obtained, or some part thereof, should have been obtained by him or for him. 2 Whart. Or. L., §§ 2124 and 2140 ; Willis v. The People, 19 Hun. 84; Regina v. Garrett, 22 Eng. L. and Eq. Rep. 607; Roscoe’s Cr. Ev. 475.

Such was the construction which Begina v. Garrett, supra, placed on the English statute prior to its amendment, as shówn in 2 Russ, on Or. 618, so as to meet the case where any person by means of any false pretense induces another to part with his property to any person other than the party making the pretense. This construction was followed in Hew York in Willis v. The People, supra, and we' find no authority to the contrary. *

For the error in giving the first instruction for the State, the judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ARNOLD, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

If Williams acted honestly, and Bracey received none of the money paid for the certificates, as assumed in the first instruction given for the State, Bracey could not properly be convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses.

In order to convict him of the offense charged, it was necessary that the money obtained, or some part thereof, should have been obtained by him or for him. 2 Whart. Or. L., §§ 2124 and 2140 ; Willis v. The People, 19 Hun. 84; Regina v. Garrett, 22 Eng. L. and Eq. Rep. 607; Roscoe’s Cr. Ev. 475.

Such was the construction which Begina v. Garrett, supra, placed on the English statute prior to its amendment, as shówn in 2 Russ, on Or. 618, so as to meet the case where any person by means of any false pretense induces another to part with his property to any person other than the party making the pretense. This construction was followed in Hew York in Willis v. The People, supra, and we' find no authority to the contrary. *

For the error in giving the first instruction for the State, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Miss. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracey-v-state-miss-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack