Cited by

12, 12-13 (Minn. 1901) (swindling ticket seller to give too much change); (swindling victim into placing bet on rigged game).

State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , .

Even in the early case of State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522, 525 , , the court noted that since the act of obtaining goods by false pretenses was made indictable in another section, the crime of swindling must include some additional or different element.

In State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522, 527 , , speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, we said: “The general rule is that, when offered simply for the purpose of proving a defendant’s commission of the offense charged, evidence of his commission of other independent crimes is inadmissible.

State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522, 525 , .

State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , ; Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37

That evidence of other offenses may be received when it tends to show a general plan or scheme to violate the law in respect to the offense with which defendant is charged is established by a long line of decisions begin *252 ning with State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , , and ending with State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .

The case is well enough within State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , State v. Smith, 82 Minn. 342 , and State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 262

State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Whipple, 143 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , .

The exception applicable to the case at bar is stated in State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , , as including evidence of any other crime which is the outgrowth of a system of similar crimes shown to have been engaged in by defendant, for example, a system of successive forgeries, or cheats or swindles of the same general nature.

In State v. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425 , , the court said: “If the evidence offered tends to prove the commission of the crime charged in the indictment, it is not incompetent because it also tends to prove the commission by the accused of another crime.” See also State v. Hayward, 62 Minn. 474 , ; State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Bourne, 86 Minn. 426 , ; State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , .

ods of criminal procedure transferred from the civil law into some parts of Europe, and too many recent evidences of the injustice of such a course on the continent exist to justify any radical departure in this respect from the justly prized rights of citizenship which our ancestors have secured to us. It is urged that testimony of a similar character was received in the case of State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , .

See State v. Gray, 29 Minn. 142 , ; State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; and State v. Smith, 82 Minn. 342 , .

This court did not, in the case of State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , , by the statement therein that, to constitute the crime of swindling under this statute, the property must have been obtained by some false token or device other than mere words, intend to hold, or be understood as holding, that a mechanical contrivance was necessary to be employed to constitute a devi

See State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , .