between the specific perjury charged in the information and the specific charge of perjury contained in the indictment, and although the statute then in force, 24 Vict. (Can.), ch. 10, sec. 10, forbade an indictment for certain offences named, including perjury, unless a recognizance had been given "to prosecute or give evidence against the person accused of such offence," or unless the accused had been committed or bound over to "answer to an indictment to be preferred against him for such offence," etc. John Wilson, J., in delivering the judgment of the court, said: "If the indictment set forth the substantial charge contained in the information, so that the defendant had reasonable notice of what he had to answer, we should incline to think this a compliance with the statute, and would refuse to quash the indictment." Intent to defraud.]-Evidence is admissible of facts which are subsequent to the false representation, to prove the insolvency of the defendants a very short time after the false representation had been made, as an evidence of their knowledge of its falsity when they made it. R. v. Boyd (1896), 4 Can. Cr. Cas. 219 (Que.). Other similar acts as evidence.]-Upon a charge of obtaining goods under false pretences, evidence of other similar acts committed by the accused is not admissible in corroboration of the fact that he committed the act charged, but upon due proof of the act charged such evidence may be given in proof of criminal intent or of guilty knowledge. R. v. Komiensky (No. 2), 7 Can. Cr. Cas. 27, 12 Que. K.B. 463. Other false pretences at other times to the same person are admissible, if they are so connected as to form one continuing representation, which it is the province of the jury to determine. R. v. Welman, Dears. 188, 6 Cox 153. R. v. Ollis, [1900] 2 Q.B. 758, was a prosecution for obtaining money by falsely pretending that three cheques which the accused gave to the prosecutors were good and valid orders for the payment of money. The accused had been previously acquitted on a similar charge on the prosecution of another person. It was held that the facts connected with the charge on which the accused had been acquitted could be given in evidence to shew that he had no reasonable ground for believing that there would be funds to meet the cheques on which he obtained the money from the prosecutors in the case then being tried. The fact that the accused had on another day passed a cheque which had been dishonoured was a circumstance to shew a course of conduct on the part of the accused, and that the passing of the cheques in question was not a matter of forgetfulness, but that they were bad to his knowledge. R. v. Ollis, [1900] 2 Q.B. 758. In the case of R. v. Rhodes, [1899] 1 Q.B. 77, the prisoner had been indicted for obtaining from one William Bays a number of eggs by false pretences, to the effect that he was a farmer and dairyman and required them for his business. The prisoner had advertised in various newspapers, under the style of Norfolk Farm Dairy, High Street, Mitcham, for newlaid eggs, and had obtained consignments of eggs at different dates, extending over two months, from Bays and from other persons named Ellston and Chambers. He was indicted for the single transaction with Bays. It was proved on the part of the prosecution that the prisoner's business at Mitcham was an entire sham, and he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It was held on a case reserved that the evidence of Ellston and Chambers of dealings with the prisoner, the one a week and the other two months after the offence charged in the indictment, was, on the whole, admissible. It was not too remote, since the transactions of these witnesses with the prisoner were the result of the same advertisement, and went to shew the prisoner's intention to carry out one entire scheme of fraud by means of a business which was a sham. Execution of valuable security obtained by fraud. To prove intent to defraud, evidence of similar frauds having recently been practised by the defendant upon others is admissible. R. v. Durocher, 12 L.R. 697 (Que.). And see notes to secs. 259 and 386. Attempt to obtain by false pretence.]-On an indictment for the offence of having obtained money by false pretences, the defendants cannot be convicted of the full offence when the evidence proved only that by the discount of their promissory note they had only obtained a credit in account, such credit in account being a thing not capable of being stolen, but they might, if the evidence should establish an attempt to obtain the money, be convicted of such attempt. R. v. Boyd (1896), 4 Can. Cr. Cas. 219 (Que.). On an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences, the accused may be convicted of an attempt to commit the offence. Code sec. 949; R. v. Goff (1860), 9 U.C.C.P. 438. Extradition.]-By the Extradition Convention of 1901 with the U.S.A. "Obtaining money, valuable securities, or other property by false pretences," was added to the list of extraditable crimes between the British Empire and the United States. Where the basis of a charge of extradition is an alleged falsification of a written document, either the document itself must be produced or a foundation must be laid for secondary evidence of its contents; and a commitment for extradition is invalid as not disclosing a prima facie case unless this has been done. Re Harsha (No. 1) (1906), 10 Can. Cr. .Cas. 433; Re Johnston (1907), 12 Can. Cr. Cas. 559. 406. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment who, with intent to defraud or injure any person by any false pretense, causes or induces any person to execute, make, accept, endorse or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, or to write, impress or affix any name or seal on any paper or parchment in order that it may afterwards be made or converted into or used or dealt with as a valuable security. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 360. Valuable security.]-For statutory definition see sec. 2(40), and presumption as to value, Code sec. 4. A lien note is a "valuable security" within the meaning of sec. 406 of the Code. The King v. Wagner (1901), 6 Can. Cr. Cas. 113, 5 Terr. L.R. 119. By false pretence.]-Where two parties enter into a voidable betting or gaming contract, each putting up his own cheque post-dated the day on which the result of the bet would be ascertained, the fact that the loser's cheque was dishonoured because he had no account at the bank will not support a charge that he obtained the execution of the winner's cheque delivered to the stakeholder for a like amount by false pretences with intent to defraud. The giving of a post-dated cheque implies no more than a promise to have sufficient funds in the bank on the date thereof and is not, in itself, a false representation of a fact past or present. Intent to defraud could not be found because the complainant was legally entitled to withdraw from the voidable contract even after the event upon which the bet was placed. R. v. Richard (1906), 11 Can. Cr. Cas. 279 (Que.). Evidence.]-On the charge of obtaining the giving of a note by false representations, evidence is receivable that at the same time the prisoner was engaged in practising a series of systematic frauds upon the farming community by similar representations, for the purpose of explaining motives and intention on the part of the prisoner. R. v. Hope (1889), 17 O.R. 463; R. v. Francis (1874), L.R. 2 C.C.R. 128; Blake v. Albion Ins. Co., 4 C.P.D. 94, 14 Cox 249; R. v. Gordon (1889), 16 Cox 622; and see note to Code sec. 405. Converted into a valuable security.]—The document need not be a valuable security at the time of the signature obtained by the false pretence, and the decisions in R. v. Brady, 26 U.C.Q.B. 13, and R. v. Rymal, 17 O.R. 227, no longer apply. R. v. Burke (1893), 24 O.R. 64. inclose letter. 407. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Falsely preto three years' imprisonment who, wrongfully and with wilful tending to falsehood, pretends or alleges that he inclosed and sent, or money in caused to be inclosed and sent, in any post letter any money, valuable security or chattel, which in fact he did not so inclose and send or cause to be inclosed and sent therein. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 361. It is not necessary to allege, in any indictment against any person for wrongfully and wilfully pretending or alleging that he inclosed and sent, or caused to be inclosed and sent, in any post letter, any money, valuable security or chattel, or to prove on the trial, that the act was done with intent to defraud. Code sec. 846. Personation. 408. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Offence. to fourteen years' imprisonment, who, with intent fraudulently Penalty. to obtain any property, personates any person, living or dead, or the administrator, wife, widow, next of kin or relation of any person. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 456. Form of indictment.]—That A. on at unlawfully, falsely and deceitfully did personate one B. with intent fraudulently to obtain from C. certain property to wit belonging to him the said B. contrary to the form of the Criminal Code sec. 408. But Evidence.]-Although the fund, to obtain which the personation takes place, has in fact been previously paid to the party entitled there may be a conviction of the personator endeavouring to obtain payment. R. v. Cramp (1817), R. & R. 324. See also the definition of "property" in sec. 2. it would appear doubtful whether a conviction could be supported for personation in respect of a supposed property or fund which had never existed. Cf. R. v. Pringle (1840), 2 Mood. C.C. 127, 9 C. & P. 408. The intent must be "fraudulently to obtain" the property, and it would seem doubtful whether a personation at the instance of the personated party I would be included. Under the English Army Prize-Money Act, 2 & 3 Wm. IV., ch. 53, sec. 49, it was declared an offence to knowingly and willingly personate or falsely assume the name or character of a soldier in order to receive prize-money, and it was held that it was no defence that the prisoner was authorized by the soldier to personate him or that the 22-CRIM. CODE. Personation at examina tions. Penalty. Personating owner of Government stock. Company stock. Dividends. Grant of land or scrip. Person under power of attorney. Transfer under personation. prisoner had bought from the soldier personated the prize-money to which the latter was entitled. R. v. Lake (1869), 11 Cox C.C. 333. 409. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable, on indictment or summary conviction, to one year's imprisonment, or to a fine of one hundred dollars, who falsely, with intent to gain some advantage for himself or some other person, personates a candidate at any competitive or qualifying examination, held under the authority of any law or statute, or in connection with any university or college, or who procures himself or any other person to be personated at any such examination, or who knowingly avails himself of the results of such personation. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 457. 410. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment who falsely and deceitfully personates, (a) any owner of any share or interest of or in any stock, annuity or other public fund transferable in any book of account kept by the Government of Canada or of any province thereof, or by any bank for any such Government; or, (b) any owner of any share or interest of or in the debt of any public body, or of or in the debt or capital stock of any body corporate, company, or society; or, (c) any owner of any dividend, coupon, certificate or money (d) any owner of any share or interest in any claim for a and thereby transfers or endeavours to transfer any share or time, is deliverable to the owner of any such stock or fund, or to the person authorized by any such power of attorney. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 458. Origin of enactment.]-The corresponding English Forgery Act, 1861, 24-25 Vict., ch. 98, secs. 3, 4, 14 and 35. at the statute is the of un Form of indictment.]-The jurors, etc., present that J.S. on the day of in the year of our Lord lawfully did falsely and deceitfully personate one J.N., the said J.N. being the owner of a certain share and interest in certain stock and annuities which were then transferable at the Bank of to wit (here state the amount and nature of the stock), and that the said J.S. thereby did then transfer (or endeavour to transfer) the said share and interest of the said J.N. in the said stock and annuities as if he, the said J.S., were then the true and lawful owner thereof, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the Criminal Code sec. 410. strument in 411. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Acknowto seven years' imprisonment who, without lawful authority or ledging inexcuse, the proof of which shall lie on him, acknowledges, in false name. the name of any other person, before any court, judge or other person lawfully authorized in that behalf, any recognizance of bail, or any cognovit actionem, or consent for judgment, or judgment, or any deed or other instrument. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 459. Fraud and Fraudulent Dealing with Property. false ticket. 412. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Obtaining to six months' imprisonment who, by means of any false ticket passage by or order, or of any other ticket or order, fraudulently and unlawfully obtains or attempts to obtain any passage on any carriage, tramway or railway, or in any steam or other vessel. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 362. 413. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Penalty. to seven years' imprisonment who, being a director, manager, public officer or member of any body corporate or public company, with intent to defraud,— (a) destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, Official writing or valuable security belonging to the body corpor- destroying security. ate or public company; or, (b) makes, or concurs in making, any false entry, or omits Making or concurs in omitting to enter any material particular, in false entry any book of account or other document. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 364. in book. |