State v. Cohen

263 N.W. 922 (1936)

Facts

D owned a Hudson seal fur coat which needed certain alterations and repairs, such as to be made longer, more ample in girth, and new lining and a new collar. Her husband engaged Mellon, a furrier, to do the work and furnish the materials needed for $50. The husband represented that the owner of the coat was a customer by the name of Mrs. Sbroe. Mellon and his brother made efforts to deliver the coat and get the money for their work. D found fault with the way the alterations were made. Mellon took the coat to D's home for the fourth time and requested payment. D tried the coat on, thought it was too long, and stated she desired to go back in her apartment where there was a long mirror to see how it looked. D went back but returned without the coat, and refused either the return of the coat or the money. The police were called, and D refused to tell what she had done with the coat. The apartment was searched, but the coat was not found there. The jury could well conclude that from the start D and her husband planned to obtain the work and labor on the coat and repossess it without paying. D was convicted and appealed.