hended-Held, that he had been indicted in a wrong county. (a)

It has been held that an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences must shew, on the face of it, a false pretence of an existing fact; and where the pretence averred was, that the prisoner falsely pretended that he, having done certain work, there was money "due and owing" to him for and on account of the work, parcel of a larger sum claimed by him; whereas there. was not then "due and owing" to him such money, being parcel, etc. After verdict of guilty had been recorded, judgment was arrested, and the Court held that the indictment was bad, and the arrest of judgment proper, upon the ground that the false pretence of an existing fact was not sufficiently alleged, and that the averment would be proved by evidence of a wrongful overcharge, or misrepresentation of matter of law. (b)

Our form of indictment for obtaining money by false pretences does not require the pretences to be set out, but simply, that the prisoner, "by false pretences, did obtain," etc. It is apprehended that it will be sufficient to follow the statutory form, and that the false pretence of an existing fact need not be set out.

To sustain an indictment for obtaining, or attempting to obtain, money by false pretences, the indictment must state with certainty the pretence of a supposed existing fact.

A statement that prisoner pretended to H. P. (the manager of T.'s business) that H. P. was to give him 10s., and that T. "was going to allow him 10s. a-week, held insufficient-Blackburn, J. and Pigott, J, dubitantibus. (c) One D., being a postmaster at Berlin, transmitted to

(a) Reg. v. Stanbury, 8 U. C. L. J. 279; L. & C. 128; 31 L. J. (M. C.) 88. (b) Reg. v. Oates, 1 U. C. L. J. 135; Dears. 459; 24 L. J. (M. C.) 123. (c) Reg. v. Henshaw, L. & C. 444; 33 L. J. (M. C.) 132.

defendant, at Toronto, several Post-Office orders, payable there, which defendant presented, and got cashed; but it appeared afterwards that the money thus obtained had never been received by D. for defendant, and that frauds to a large extent had been thus committed. Defendant having been convicted, upon an indictment which charged him with having unlawfully, fraudulently, and knowingly, obtained from our Lady the Queen these sums of the moneys and property of our said Lady the Queen, with intent to defraud:-Held, that the indictment was good-that the 56th section of the Con. Stats. Can., c. 31, was not applicable to the case, and that it was unnecessary to allege an intent to defraud any particular person, as the indictment was in the language of the Statute (a) creating the offence, and the same manner of allegation was sanctioned by c. 99, s. 29, of the Con. Stats. (b)-Held, also, that the indictment need not lay the money as the property of the Postmaster-General, and it was sufficient to lay it in Her Majesty. (c)

A municipality having provided some wheat for the poor, the defendant obtained an order for fifteen bushels, described as "three of golden drop, three of fife, nine of milling wheat." Some days afterwards, he went back, and represented that the order had been accidentally destroyed, when another was given to him. He then struck out of the first order "three of golden drop, three of fife," and, presenting both orders, obtained, in all, twenty-four bushels. The indictment charged that defendant unlawfully, fraudulently, and knowingly, by false pretences, did obtain an order from A., one of the municipality of B., requiring the delivery of certain wheat, by and from one C., and, by presenting the said

(a) Con. Stat. Can. c. 92, s. 73.

(b) Reg. v. Dessaner, 21 U. C. Q. B. 231. (c) See now 32 & 33 Vic. c. 21, s. 93.

order to C., did fraudulently, knowingly, and by false pretences, procure a certain quantity of wheat, to wit, nine bushels of wheat, from the said C., of the goods and chattels of the said municipality, with intent to defraud: -Held, that the indictment was sufficient in substance, and not uncertain or double, but in effect charging that defendant obtained the order, and, by presenting it, obtained the wheat by false pretences. (a)

An indictment, charging that defendant, by false pretences, did obtain board of the goods and chattels of the prosecutor, was held bad, the term "board" being too general. (b)

An indictment for obtaining by false pretences goods and chattels, or a chattel of the prosecutor, not defining them or it, would be insufficient. There must be the same particularity as in larceny, that the party may know certainly what he is charged with stealing, or obtaining by false pretences. (c) The prosecutor is not bound to deliver to the defendant the particulars of the crime charged against him. (d)

An indictment, for obtaining money or goods by false pretences, must have stated whose the money was, or goods were. (e)

But the allegation of ownership is rendered unnecessary by the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 93. By the same section, a general allegation that the party accused did the act, with intent to defraud, is sufficient, without alleging an intent to defraud any person.

An allegation in a count for obtaining a cheque, describing it "for the sum of £8 14s. 6d. of the moneys of

(a) Reg. v. Campbell, 18 U. C. Q. B. 413.

(b) Reg. v. M'Quarrie, 22 U. C. Q. B. 600. (c) Ib. 601, per Draper, C. J.

(d) Reg. v. Senecal, 8 L. C. J. 286.

(e) Reg. v. M'Donald, 17 U. C. C. P. 638, per A. Wilson, J.; Reg. v. Martin, 8 A. & E. 481.

William Willis," sufficiently describes the ownership of the cheque, for the words "of the moneys" may be rejected. (a)

The English Statute, 9 & 10 Vic., c. 95, s. 57, is confined to the use of false instruments, and does not apply to the mere verbal assertion of authority. Therefore, where the prisoner had obtained payment of a sum, in discharge of a debt and costs, from a defendant, (who had been previously duly served with a summons in the County Court) by pretending that he was an officer of, and authorised by, the Court to receive it, it was held that the offence was not made out. (b)

The above clause of the English Statute is, in substance, the same as the 181st clause of our Division Court Act, Con. Stats. U. C., c. 19, so that the decision is in point on the construction of our statute. In another case, on the same clause of the Statute, the prisoner was indicted for acting, and professing to act, under a false colour and pretence of County Court process, and it was proved that the prisoner, being a creditor of R., sent him a nonsensical letter, headed with the Royal Arms, and purporting to be signed by the Clerk of a County Court, threatening County Court proceedings. He, subsequently told R.'s wife that he had ordered the County Court to send the letter, upon which she paid the debt; and, whilst making out the receipt, he made demand of her for the County Court expenses :-Held, that these facts constituted felony, within the meaning of the section, and that the conviction must be supported. (c)

Where A. delivered to B. a document requiring him to produce accounts, etc., at a trial in a County Court, intituled of the Court, and giving the names of Plaintiff

(a) Reg. v. Godfrey, 4 U. C. L. J. 167; Dears. & B. C. C. 426. (b) Reg. v. Myott, 1 U. C. L. J. 35; 6 Cox, C. C. 406.

(c) Reg. v. Evans, 3 U. C. L. J. 119; Dears. & B. 236; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 92.

and Defendant, with a statement, in the margin, of the amount of the sum claimed, no such cause really existing: on an indictment against A., for feloniously causing to be delivered to B., a paper purporting to be a copy of a certain process of the County Court of L.-Held, that the document above mentioned was a notice to produce documents, etc., between party and party, and not a process of the Court, nor did it purport to be so. (a)

B. being indebted to A., A. obtained a blank form for Plaintiff's instructions to issue County Court suminons. This he filled up with particulars of the names and addresses of himself and B., as plaintiff and defendant, and of the nature and amount of the claim, and, without any authority, signed it in the name of the Registrar, endorsing also a notice, signed also by A. in the name of the Registrar, and without his authority, that unless the amount claimed were paid by B. on a certain day, an execution warrant would issue against him. This paper he delivered to B., with intent thereby to obtain payment of his debt:-Held, (b) that this was "an acting, or professing to act, under false colour, and pretence of process of the County Court," within the meaning of 9 & 10 Vic., c. 95, s. 57. (c)

Having treated specifically of the offences of larceny, embezzlement, and the obtaining of money by false pretences, we proceed to point out the distinctions between them. It is of the essence of the offence of larceny that the property be taken against the will of the owner. (d) If taken by the consent of the owner, for instance, if he intends to part with the property, no larceny will be committed.

(a) Reg. v. Castle, 4 U. C. L. J. 73; Dears. & B. 363; 27 L. J. (M. C.) 70. (b) Affirming Reg. v. Evans, supra.

(c) Reg. v. Richmond, 5 U. C. L. J. 237; Bell 142.

(d) Reg. v. Prince, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 154, per Bovill, C. J.