
    State v. Trisler.
    
      Indictment for obtaining property under false pretenses — Requisites of.
    
    (Decided October 11, 1892.)
    EXCEPTIONS by tbe Prosecuting Attorney, to tbe decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Brown county.
    At tbe October term, 1891, of the court of common pleas, an indictment was presented by the grand jury against the 'defendant, as follows:
    “ The State of Ohio, Brown County, ss:
    “In the court of common pleas of Brown county, Ohio, for the term of October, in the year .of our Eord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, the jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of the county of Brown, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire of crimés and offenses committed within said county of Brown, in the name and by the authority of the state of Ohio, on their oaths do find and present that Henry W. Trisler, late of said county, on the 80th day of June, in the year of our Eord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety,, with force and arms, in said county of Brown and state of Ohio, unlawfully and knowingly did falsely pretend to one Joseph R. Eeonard, that he, the said Henry W. Trisler, was ■■the owner of certain real estate in the village of Hamersville, in said county of Brown and state of Ohio, known as the 'Kauffman property, and that he was also the owner of thirty-four acres of land adjoining the said real estate in the village of Hamersville, and that he was also the owner of certain real estate in the village of Hamersville, known as the Doctor Eove property, and that none of the said real estate was encumbered by debts or liens, and that all said real estate and land was in the name of him, the said Henry W. Trisler, and that he, the said Henry W. Trisler, did not owe anything and was out of debt; by which false pretenses the-said Henry W. Trisler, then and there unlawfully did obtain from the said Joseph R. Eeonard one hundred dollars in money, ■of the value of one hundred dollars of the personal property, ■of the said Joseph R. Eeonard with intent then and there ■and thereby to cheat and defraud the'said Joseph R. Eeonard ■of the same, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Henry "W. Trisler did owe and was indebted to divers persons to the amount of more than one thousand dollars, and the said Henry W. Trisler was then insolvent, and that said real estate was incumbered by debts and liens, and that all of said real ■estate was not in the name of said Henry W. Trisler, and that he was not then and there the owner of all. of said real ■estate, and the said Henry W. Trisler, at the time he so falsely pretended, as aforesaid, well knew the said false pretenses to be false, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio,”
    A motion to quash was thereupon interposed by the defendant, which, upon hearing, was sustained by the court. To which ruling the prosecuting attorney excepted.
    
      David Tarbell, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
    
      Thompson & Fite, contra.
    
   By the Court:

A majority of the court is of opinion that the indictment is faulty in two particulars.

The allegations “that said real estate was encumbered by debts and liens, and that all of said real estate was not in the name of said Henry W. Trisler, and that he was not then the owner of all of said real estate” do not amount to substantial denials. For ought that appears, defendant may have been the owner, in his own name, of all save some insignificant parcel of the land, and the liens and debts may have been trifling in amount. Redmond v. The State 35 Ohio St., 81.

The allegation that defendant “did owe and was indebted to divers persons to the amount of more than one thousand dollars,” is indefinite. It was the right of the defendant to be informed of the names of the persons to whom the state charged him with being indebted, and,, approximately, of the amount to each, in order that he. might intelligently prepare his defense. 2 Bishop on C. P., secs. 165, 168: State v. Lambeth, 80 N. C., 393; Keller v. State, 51 Ind. 111; Barber v. The State, 17 Hun. 366.

It is arguéd that the' representations as to title and ownership of, and liens upon, the land, were not calculated b> deceive, because they were all matters of record of which all persons are bound to take notice. This proposition is. without force or substance.

Exceptions overruled.  