State v. Pritchett

In my opinion the results reached in the decision heretofore rendered should not be disturbed. As the former opinion is reported in 87 U. 104, 34 P.2d 704 and will be printed in the Utah Reports, it is not necessary to repeat what is there said. The view is expressed in the prevailing opinion that the allegation of the information, "that said defendant William A. Pritchett was not then and there, nor was any other person or corporation whatsoever entitled to said check or draft or the proceeds thereof or the said credit in payment of a just demand, or otherwise, or at all," may be regarded as…