were made. This rule has been changed by statute in some states.41 But even where the statutes of the state in which the pretenses are made provide for the punishment of persons who commit within the Vermont. State v. Marshall, 77 Vt. 262, 59 Atl. 916. Wisconsin. Bates v. State, 124 Wis. 612, 103 N. W. 251, 4 Ann. Cas. 365. England. Rex v. Buttery, cited in 3 Barn. & C. 703, 5 Dowl. & R. 619, 4 Barn. & Ald. 179. A prosecution may be had in the state where checks are obtained and cashed, though they are drawn on a bank in another state. State V. Nord, 230 Mo. 655, 132 S. W. 239. To obtain money on a fraudulent draft, drawn on a bank in a foreign state or country, is no crime against the foreign jurisdiction if the of fender received the money on first presentation of the draft. Reg. v. Garrett, Dears. C. C. 232, 6 Cox C. C. 260; but if the bank to which it was presented received and forwarded it for collection only, and merely paid him the proceeds, after collection, the crime is against the foreign jurisdiction and not that in which the defendant received the money. State v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271, 1 S. W. 293. Defendant wrote from C county to the prosecuting witness in H county to send him $500. The prosecuting witness notified a bank in C county that he would honor defendant's draft for that amount. Defendant drew a draft for $500, with exchange, which was paid on presentation. Held that the offense was consummated in C county. Dechard v. State (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 813. Where defendant in Wisconsin obtained a loan of money in that state, and at his request no part of the money was paid to him, but the lender's agent obtained drafts and sent them to persons designated by defendant in other states, who cashed the same there, it was held that the offense was not committed in Wisconsin. Bates v. State, 124 Wis. 612, 103 N. W. 251, 4 Ann. Cas. 365. This is true in respect to the statutory offense of obtaining money by means of the confidence game. Graham v. People, 181 Ill. 477, 55 N. E. 179, 47 L. R. A. 731. And a person cannot be prosecuted for bunko steering under a statute defining that offense to be the alluring or enticing of any person to any place upon any pretense, and there by duress or fraud compelling him to lose or part with his property, where the victim is taken to a place outside of the state and there compelled to lose or part with his money, although the alluring and enticing takes place in the state. Cruthers v. State, 161 Ind. 139, 67 N. E. 930. 41 Under statutes providing that where an offense is committed in two or more counties, or partly in one county or partly in another, it may be prosecuted in either, the offense may be prosecuted either in a county where the money or property was obtained, or where the pretenses or part of them were made. State v. Gibson, 132 Iowa 53, 106 N. W. 270; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576, 47 N. E. 883; People v. Wicks, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 539, 42 N. Y. Supp. 630, aff'd 154 N. Y. 766, 49 N. E. 1102. And see Com. v. Friedman, 188 Mass. 308, 74 N. E. 464. To come within such a provision the indictment must show that the offense was consummated in the state. Connor v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 10 So. 891, 30 Am. St. Rep. 126. state any crime in whole or in part, it has been held that an indictment will not lie there if the property is obtained in another state unless the acts charged against the defendant constitute a crime of equal degree in the latter state.42 In several cases it has been held, to sustain jurisdiction, that delivery to a carrier or agent for defendant at his request is a delivery to defendant and completes the offense at the point of such delivery, 43 and it has been further held that in such a case the prosecution not only may but must be had at the point of such delivery.44 But it has also been held that the delivery in such case is only partial or conditional, the owner's right of stoppage in transitu remaining, and that therefore the offense may also be prosecuted in the state where the offender receives the property from the carrier.45 42 People v. Arnstein, 211 N. Y. 585, 105 N. E. 814, rev'g 157 App. Div. 766, 142 N. Y. Supp. 842, which reversed 78 Misc. 18, 138 N. Y. Supp. 806. If the crime charged constitutes grand larceny in the state where the pretenses are made, it must be shown that grand larceny or some crime corresponding to that offense was committed by the defendant in the other state. It is not sufficient to show that the acts committed there constituted only a misdemeanor. People v. Arnstein, 211 N. Y. 585, 105 N. E. 814, rev'g 157 App. Div. 766, 142 N. Y. Supp. 842, which reversed 78 Misc. 18, 138 N. Y. Supp. 806. 43 In re Stephenson, 67 Kan. 556, 73 Pac. 62; Com. v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 8 N. E. 432; State v. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 408, 8 S. W. 720; Com. v. Karpowski, 167 Pa. 225, 31 Atl. 572. Where defendant, being present, induced a manufacturer to ship goods to fictitious persons in another state to which he then went and received them, it was held that he could be. prosecuted in the state where the representations were made and the goods shipped. Com. v. Taylor, 105 Mass. 172. In a prosecution against a real es tate agent for obtaining the signature of D to a deed by false representations, it appeared that D, who resided in Pennsylvania, executed the deed in that state, leaving the place for the name of the grantee blank, and sent it to the defendant in Missouri, where the land was situated with the understanding that the defendant was to fill in the name of the grantee and deliver it on completing a trade of the property for certain other land, in respect to which the defendant had made the misrepresentations on which the prosecution was based, which the defendant did. It was held that the offense was committed in Missouri, but that if D had executed the deed in complete form, including the name of the grantee, and had mailed it with the intent that delivery to the defendant should be delivery to the grantee, mailing the letter would have been a delivery to the grantee, and the offense would have been committed in Pennsylvania. State v. Marion, 235 Mo. 359, 138 S. W. 491. 44 Norris v. State, 25 Ohio St. 217; State v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271, 1 S. W. 293. 45 Com. v. Schmunk, 207 Pa. 544, 56 Atl. 1088, 99 Am. St. Rep. 801, It has been held by some courts that where the money or property is sent to the defendant by mail the offense is complete in the state 46 and county 47 where it is deposited in the mail, and may be prosecuted there, on the ground that the postmaster is the agent of the defendant to receive it. But it has also been held that where a draft is sent to the defendant by mail, the money represented by it is received in the jurisdiction where the draft is received and cashed.48 In the absence of statute, a person who obtains goods by false pretenses in one state or county, and carries them into another, is not guilty in the latter of the offense of obtaining goods by false pretenses.49 But it is sometimes provided by statute that a person who brings into the state money or property so obtained in another state must, on conviction be punished as though he had stolen the same, and that a person committing the offense may be indicted and tried in the county in which he resides or in any county into which he brings or causes to be brought any part of such money or property.50 False personation with intent to defraud, when committed by telephone, takes effect and may be prosecuted in the federal district where the hearer is, although the aff'g 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 348; Com. v. Everett, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 67. Where goods were bought on a verbal order, void under the statute of frauds, delivery to the carrier did not constitute delivery to the defendant. Ex parte Parker, 11 Neb. 309, 9 N. W. 33. Where accused made a report, supported by affidavit, in Northampton and sent it to Westminster, on the basis of which money was paid him out of the treasury at Westminster, the venue was sustained at Northampton. Reg. v. Cooke, 1 Fost. & F. 64. 46 Com. v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 8 N. E. 432. 47 State v. Briggs, 74 Kan. 377, 86 Pac. 447, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 278, 10 Ann. Cas. 904. Where a letter containing false representations is posted in one county, addressed to and received by prosecutor in another county, and in speaker is in another district.51 consequence prosecutor sends funds by mail to the prisoner, the prosecution may be had in the county where prosecutor receives the false representations and deposits the funds in the mail. Reg. v. Leech, 7 Cox C. C. 100, Dears. C. C. 642; Reg. v. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551, 3 Car. & K. 346, 4 Cox C. C. 198. 48 Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q. B. D. 23, 15 Cox C. C. 343. If the defendant is charged with obtaining the money, and not the draft, he cannot be prosecuted in the state where the draft was mailed. Bates v. State, 124 Wis. 612, 103 N. W. 251, 4 Ann. Cas. 365. 49 Norris v. State, 25 Ohio St. 217, 18 Am. Rep. 291; Reg. v. Stanbury, Leigh & C. 128, 9 Cox C. C. 94. 50 Dennis v. State, 16 Ala. App. 115, 75 So. 707. 51 Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60, 60 L. Ed. 526, 30 Sup. Ct. 255. § 309. Forgery and uttering. In the absence of a statute, an indictment for forgery will lie only in the state and county in which the act of forgery is committed.52 But statutes sometimes permit a prosecution in any county in which the forged instrument was forged or used or passed, or attempted to be used or passed.58 And of course statutes providing that where the acts or effects constituting or requisite to an offense occur in two or more counties, the jurisdiction is in either, or punishing any person who out of the state, commits an offense punished by the laws of the state, and not requiring personal presence,55 apply. And a person who in one state or county procures an innocent agent to utter a forged instrument in another state or county is himself guilty of uttering it, and may be indicted in the latter state or county.56 By the weight of authority the uttering of a forged instrument is not complete until it comes into the hands of some person other than the utterer, his agent, or servant.57 And where this rule obtains, the place where the instrument is received by such other person is the place where the offense of uttering is committed, and where a prosecution therefor must be had.58 And, according to this view, it is held that if the instrument is sent by mail, the 52 Com. V. Parmenter, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 279. And see Cohen V. People, 7 Colo. 274; Lindsey v. State, 38 Ohio St. 507; State v. Poindexter, 23 W. Va. 805. Under a statute making a person guilty of forgery who, knowing the illegal purpose intended, shall write or cause to be written the signature or the whole or any part of the forged instrument, and providing that all persons engaged in the illegal act are deemed guilty of forgery, a person who enters into a conspiracy in Texas to fabricate titles to land in that state, and there procures a facsimile of a signature to be forged to an instrument, a certificate of the county clerk, and certain bogus seals, and sends them to a person in another state, who forges the instrument and returns it to defendant, who records it in Texas, defendant may be prosecuted in Texas. Ex parte Rogers, 10 Tex. App. 655, 38 Am. Rep. 654. 53 Carloss v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. 19, 198 S. W. 147; Mason v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 95, 22 S. W. 144, 408. 54 Under such a statute, where a forged paper was written and filed for record in one county, but was acknowledged in another, it was held that the defendant might be prosecuted in the first county. Arnold v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 519, 178 Pac. 897. 55 Under such a statute, it was held that an indictment would lie in Texas for forging, in another state, instruments affecting the title to lands in Texas. Hanks v. State, 13 Tex. App. 289. 56 See 293, supra. 58 State v. Hudson, 13 Mont. 112; People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 509; Lindsey v. State, 38 Ohio St. 507; Com. v. Searle, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 332, 4 Am. Dec. 446. # mail is the sender's agent, and the uttering is at the place where it is received, and not at the place where it is deposited in the mails.59 Other courts, however, have held that the instrument is to be regarded as uttered in the county or state in which it is deposited in the mail and that the offender may be prosecuted there.60 Under a statute making all persons who commit in whole or in part any crime within the state liable to punishment under the laws of the state, a person who through his agent in such state sends a forged check by mail to a bank in another state to be paid by it, may be convicted in the first named state of forgery by attempting to pass the check, in case it is received by the bank to which it is sent, and of an attempt to commit forgery if it is not so received.61 But a person who has parted with a forged instrument and has no further property in or control over the same cannot be prosecuted in some other county or state in which the instrument is subsequently passed by some other person who may have owned it, even where the statute permits a prosecution in any county in which the instrument was forged or used or passed,62 or provides for the prosecution in the state of a person who, while without the state, commits or consummates an offense by an agent or means within the state.6 63 59 Florida. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922. Kansas. In re Carr, 28 Kan. 1. Montana. State V. Hudson, 13 Mont. 112, 32 Pac. 413, 19 L. R. A. 775. New York. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509. Ohio. Lindsey v. State, 38 Ohio St. 507. Tennessee. Foute v. State, 15 Lea (83 Tenn.) 712. Texas. Jessup v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 83, 68 S. W. 988. 60 United States v. Plympton, 4 Cranch C. C. 309, Fed. Cas. No. 16,058; United States v. Wright, 2 Cranch C. C. 296, Fed. Cas. No. 16,773; United States v. Bickford, 4 Blatchf. 337, Fed. Cas. No. 14,591; Reg. v. Finkelstein, 16 Cox C. C. 107; Perkin's Case, 2 Lewin C. C. 150; and see § 584, infra. 61 People v. Sansom, 37 Cal. App. 435, 173 Pac. 1107. 62 So a person who forges a check in one state on a bank in another state, and obtains the money on it from a bank in the state in which the forgery is committed, cannot be indicted in the state in which the bank on which the check is drawn is situated, though the check is forwarded to that bank by the bank cashing it. Thulemeyer v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 619, 31 S. W. 659. 63 A person who in one state forges and utters a railroad time check, which is paid by an agent of the railroad company there, and is sent by such agent to the treasurer of the company in another state, who gives him credit for it on his account, cannot be prosecuted in the latter state. In re Carr, 28 Kan. 1. |