People v. Ashley

Facts

Defendant was the 'business manager' of 'Life's Estate, Ltd.,' a corporation chartered for the purpose of 'introducing people.' D ran the affairs of the corporation, but its capital stock was owned by Mrs. Edith Wingrave, D's sister-in-law, and Mr. and Mrs. Leo Butts, D's son-in-law and daughter. Mrs. Wingrave and the Buttses were also the officers and directors of the corporation. Mrs. Russ, 70 years of age, visited the offices of Life's Estate and was persuaded by D to join the 'Life's Estate Philosophical Society.' D was offered a position as matron and hostess at a salary of $100 a month with a rent-free apartment on the property. She accepted the offer. D then drove her to her home and passed a lot with two sheet metal buildings. D told her that 'he owned that property and they also owned the La Brea property at 1537.' D asked Mrs. Russ if she had any ready cash. When she told him that she had $3,000 D then said he was building a theater on the Sunset property and needed money to proceed with the construction. D offered her interest at the rate of 6 percent a first mortgage or trust deed on the La Brea property. D took her to the bank, and she got $3,000 in currency from a safe deposit box. She turned the money over to D in reliance on his representations that she would get a first mortgage on the La Brea property and that the money would be used in the construction of a theater on the Sunset Boulevard lot, which she believed he owned. D gave her a receipt which stated that she was to receive a first trust deed on the La Brea property. The money was deposited to the account of Life's Estate. The corporation's books show that on that day the cash account was subject to an overdraft of $4,151.93. After the transaction, D told her that he needed more money to complete the theater building and asked her to make an additional loan. She said that she had a note, secured by a trust deed and a chattel mortgage, worth $4,200 that she had acquired from the sale of the home in which she had previously lived. She agreed to transfer these documents to D. This loan, and the previous one of $3,000 were to be consolidated, and he agreed to give her a first mortgage for the full amount against the La Brea property. The $4,200 note secured by the trust deed and chattel mortgage was sold by D and the proceeds of the sale deposited to the account of Life's Estate. They were used for the operating expenses of the corporation. Her many requests for the promised first mortgage were unavailing. She left the employ of Life's Estate and received a note of the corporation secured by a second trust deed on unimproved property in Nichols Canyon owned by the corporation. Mrs. Russ testified that, although this security was worthless to her, she took it because defendant had told her to 'take that or nothing.' The Sunset property was owned by the corporation, and no theater was ever built thereon. The La Brea property was owned by Dr. Louis Phillips, who had leased the property to Mrs. Wingrave for a period of five years. He had not authorized anyone to place an encumbrance on this property. The same type of circumstances occurred to a Mrs. Neal, and she loaned first $13,500 for a note and then another $4,470 for a $17,500 note in exchange for the first note. became interested in Life's Estate through a newspaper advertisement and Leo Butts called to sell her a membership. She later went to the La Brea office, where Mrs. Wingrave introduced her to defendant. D told her he wanted to purchase the El Patio Theater for $165,000, which he said was worth $500,000. An escrow for the purchase by Life's Estate of the El Patio Theater was opened at the Westchester Branch of the Security-First National Bank with a deposit of $5,000 on June 23, 1948. The escrow was closed, and the deposit was withdrawn on July 13, 1948. D's attorney testified that the purchase was canceled by agreement after D had unsuccessfully attempted to secure a reduction in the purchase price, because the motion picture projection booth would have to be remodeled to conform to fire regulations, and because of encroachments and easements that would be exempted from the policy of title insurance. D then told Mrs. Neal that the theater building had been condemned and that the deal had fallen through. The record also discloses that Mrs. Neal consulted an attorney, but no action was taken. She had received only $649.49 in interest on her loans at the time of trial. The case went to the jury with instructions relating to larceny by trick and device and obtaining property by false pretenses. The jurors were instructed that all would have to agree on the type of theft if any, that was committed. D was convicted and appealed. D contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of either type of theft, that the general verdict of guilty was unlawful, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on these grounds.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.