false pretence. Reg. v. Lee, L. & An indictment charged, that H. R. having in his possession a certain weight of 28 lbs., did falsely pretend to C. that a quantity of coals which he delivered to C. weighed 16 cwt. (meaning 1792 lbs. weight), and were worth 17., and that the weight was 56 lbs.; by means of which he obtained a sovereign from C., with intent to defraud him of part thereof, to wit, 10s.; whereas the coals did not weigh 1792 lbs., and were not worth 17.; and whereas the weight was not 56 lbs. ; and whereas the coals were of the weight of 896 lbs. only, and were not worth more than 10s.; and whereas the weight was of 28 lbs. only. It was objected that all the pretences, except that respecting the weight, were false affirmations, and that, as to the weight, there was no allegation to connect the sale of the coals with the use of the weight. The defendant was convicted, and the conviction was held to be wrong. Rex v. Reed, 7 C. & P. 848. (g) By Promises of Marriage. An indictment will lie for fraud ulently obtaining goods under a pretence of a treaty of marriage. Anon. Lofft, 146. The prisoner paid his addresses to the prosecutrix, and obtained a promise of marriage from her, which promise she afterwards refused to ratify. He then threatened her with an action, and by this means obtained money from her. During the whole of the transactions the prisoner had a wife. On an indictment against him for obtaining money under false pretences, the pretences laid were, first, that he was unmarried; and secondly, that he was entitled to bring and maintain his action against her for a breach of promise of marriage :-Held, per Lord Denman, C. J., and Maule, J., that the fact of the prisoner paying his addresses was sufficient evidence for the jury on which they might find the first pretence, that he was a single man and in a condition to marry; and, per Maule, J., that there was sufficient evidence on which to find the falseness of the other pretence, that he was entitled to maintain his action for breach of promise of marriage; and that such latter false pretence was a sufficient false pretence within the statute. Reg. v. Copeland, Car. & M. 516. An indictment for obtaining money from H. under the false pretence that the prisoner intended to marry H., and wanted the money to pay for a wedding-suit he had purchased, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Reg. v. Johnston, 2 M. C. C. 254. A., obtaining money from the prosecutrix by falsely pretending that he was unmarried, that he would furnish a house with the money, and would then marry her, is properly convicted of obtaining money by false pretences. Reg. v. Jennison, 9 Cox, C. C. 158; 8 Jur., N. S. 442; L. & C. 157; 31 L. J., M. C. 146; 10 W. R. 488; 6 L. T., N. S. 256. (h) By means of Cheques, Bills of Exchange or Promissory Notes. A person, who under a mere false pretence of purchasing lottery tickets, bargains with the holder of them, and obtains the delivery of them by giving a draft on a banker, with whom he had no cash, for the amount of them, is not indictable for a fraud at common law; for, in order to constitute this offence, the property must be obtained either by conspiracy, or by means of a false token as well as a false pretence, and not, as in this case, by a mere false assertion, or a bare naked lie. Rex v. Lara, 2 Leach, C. C. 652; 2 East, P. C. 819, 827; 6 T. R. 565. Obtaining goods by means of a prisoner and negotiated by the drawer, part of the amount, for the pur cheque which the party knows will not be paid, is an indictable offence. Rex v. Jackson, 3 Camp. 370-pose of paying the bill, under the Bayley. false pretence that the prisoner was prepared with the residue of the amount, is an offence within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, the prisoner being shown not to be so prepared, and not intending so to apply the money. Rex v. Crossley, 2 M. & Rob. 17; 2 Lewin, C. C. 164-Patteson. A. was charged with falsely pretending that a post-dated cheque, drawn by himself, was a good and genuine order for 257., and of the value of 251., by means of which he obtained a watch and a chain. It was found by the jury that, before the completion of the sale, and the delivery of the watch by the prosecutor to the prisoner, the prisoner represented to the prosecutor that he had an account with the bankers on whom the cheque was drawn, and that he had a right to draw the cheque, though he postponed the date for his own convenience, all which was false; and that he represented that the cheque would be paid on or after the day of the date, but that he had no reasonable ground to believe that it would be paid, or that he could provide funds to pay it. The pris-itor:-Held, that the case was one oner was convicted, and the judges held the conviction right. Rex v. Parker, 7 C. & P. 825; 2 M. C. C. 1. Obtaining credit in account from the party's own banker, by drawing a bill of exchange on a person on whom the party has no right to draw, and which has no chance of being paid, is not a false pretence within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, though the banker pays money for him in consequence to an extent that he would not otherwise have done. Rex v. Wavell, 1 M. C. C. 224. If a person, by false pretences, obtains a check on a banker on unstamped paper, payable to D. F. J., and not payable to bearer, it is not an obtaining a valuable security by false pretences. Rex v. Yates, Car. C. L. 333; 1 M. C. C. 170. But see now 21 & 22 Vict. c. 20; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 118, s. 18, and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83. s. 27. But obtaining, as a loan, from the drawer of a bill accepted by the The prisoner was convicted upon an indictment, charging him with stealing a cheque. It was proved that he was clerk to a savings bank, and received the cheque from a manager of the bank, upon a false representation that one of the depositors had given notice of withdrawal, and for the purpose of handing it over to the depositor. It was found that, according to the usual course of business, if a depositor could not attend at a proper time to receive the cheque, it was handed to the prisoner, as the agent of the depos of false pretence, and not larceny, and that the conviction was wrong. Reg. v. Essex, Dears. & B. C. C.371; 4 Jur., N. S. 16; 27 L. J., M. C. 20; 7 Cox, C. C. 384. If an indictment for attempting to obtain money under false pretences, charges it to have been attempted by means of a paper writing purporting to be an order for money, and the instrument cannot be considered as stated in the indictment to be such an order, it is bad. Rex v. Cartwright, R. & R. C. C. 106. But an indictment that A. unlawfully did falsely pretend that a printed paper was a good and valid promissory note, is sufficient, without setting out the paper. Reg. v. Coulson, T. &. M. 332; 1 Den. Č. C. 592; 14 Jur. 557; 19 L.J., M. C. 182. Where a prisoner obtained goods on the faith of a false statement that a bill which he gave for the price of them would be paid on the following day, he may be convicted of obtaining goods under false pre tences, though such bill on the face of it was not due till after that day. Reg. v. Hughes, 1 F. & F. 355Watson. An indictment stated that the defendant falsely pretended to W. that he was a captain in the East India Company's service, and that a promissory note which he " then and there produced and delivered to W., purporting to be made for the payment of 217., not saying by whom it purported to be drawn, nor otherwise describing it, was a good and valuable security for 217.; by which false pretences he obtained," &c. whereas the defendant was not a captain in the company's service; and whereas the promissory note which he then and there produced, and delivered to W., was not a good and valuable security for 21., or for any other sum Held, that the indictment did not sufficiently describe the note, or show how it was wanting in value; and that a conviction could not be supported on the representation as to the defendant's character, because the false pretences were so connected on the record, that one could not be separated from the other. Reg. v. Wickham, 2 P. & D. 333; 10 A. & E. 34. 66 The fact of uttering a counterfeit note as a genuine one is tantamount to a representation that it was so; and it is a false pretence, notwithstanding the note upon the face of it would have been good for nothing in point of law, even if true. Rex v. Freeth, R. & R. C. C. 127. On an indictment for delivering in payment for a horse certain promissory notes, as for good and available promissory notes, which the prisoner knew to be not good, nor of any value; the notes purported to be the notes of a country bank which was supposed to have failed: -Held, that at all events it was necessary to prove that the notes were bad and of no value. Rex v. Flint, R. & R. C. C. 460. Indictment for false pretences, in passing a note of a bank that had stopped payment as a good note. The prisoner knew that the bank had stopped payment; but it appeared that two only of the partners or the bank had become bankrupt, and that the third had not:Held, that the prisoner must be acquitted. Rex v. Spencer, 3 C. & P. 420-Gaselee. If a person passes a note of a country bank for 51. payable on demand as a good note, and as of the value of 51, knowing that the bank is insolvent, and has stopped payment, and cannot pay the note in full, he may be indicted for obtaining money by false pretences. Reg. v. Evans, 5 Jur., N. S. 1361; 29 L. J., M. C. 20; 1 L. T., N. S. 108; Bell, C. C. 187; 8 Cox, C. C. 257. But where the evidence shows that the bank has paid a dividend, the direction to the jury that there is evidence that the note is not of any value, will be wrong. lb. Passing off a flash note as a Bank of England note on a person unable to read, and obtaining from him in exchange for it five pigs, of the value of 31. 17s. 6d., and 11. 2s. 6d. change, is a false pretence. Reg.v. Coulson, T. & M. 332; 1 Den. C. C. 592; 14 Jur. 557; 19 L. J., M. C 182; 4 Cox, C. C. 227. The defendant fraudulently offered a 17. Irish bank note as a note for 5l., and obtained change as for a 57. note. The person from whom the change was obtained could read, and the note itself upon the face of it clearly afforded the means of detecting the fraud:-Held, that this was obtaining money by means of false pretences. Reg. v. Jessop, Dears. & B. C. C. 442; 4 Jur., N. S. 123; 27 L. J., M. C. 70; 7 Cox, C. C. 399. An indictment charging that the defendant unlawfully did falsely pre tend to S. that a paper writing which he produced to S. was a good 51. Ledbury Bank note, by means whereof he unlawfully obtained money from S., with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same: whereas, in truth and in fact, the paper writing was not a good 57. note of the Ledbury Bank, is bad, as it does not charge that the defendant knew that it was not a good 57. note of the Ledbury Bank, and is not aided by the allegation of the intent to defraud. Reg. v. Philpotts, 1 C. & K. 112Wightman. larceny at common law, were not chattels, within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53. Reg. v. Robinson, Bell, C. C. 34; 5 Jur., N. S. 203; 28 L. J., M. C. 58; 7 W. R. 203; 32 L. T. 502. G., secretary to a burial society, was indicted for falsely pretending that a death had occurred, and so obtaining from the president an order on the treasurer in the following form: "Bolton United Burial Society, No. 23. Bolton, September 1st, 1853. Mr. A. Entwistle, treasurer; please to pay the bearer 21. 10s., Greenhalgh, and charge the same to the society. Robert Lord, Benjamin Beswick, president":Held, that this was a valuable security under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, as explained by sect. 5. Reg. v. Greenhalgh, 1 Dears. C. C. 267; 6 Cox, C. C. 257. On an indictment for obtaining money by falsely pretending that the promissory note of a bank that has stopped payment by reason of bankruptcy, was a good and valuable security for the payment of the amount mentioned in it, and was of that value, it is not necessary to prove the proceedings in bankrupt- B. was indicted for obtaining by cy. It is sufficient to prove the false pretences from a railway comtime when the bank stopped pay-pany a printed ticket, with intent to ment, and that cash could not be defraud the company of the same; obtained for the note on its being the ticket enabled the prisoner to presented for payment at the place travel free from B. to H., and was where it was made payable. Reg. to be given back to the company at v. Smith, 6 Cox, C. C, 314. H.:-Held, that the ticket was a chattel within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, and that the attempt to defraud the company of the same was not affected by the fact of the ticket having to be returned at the end of the journey. Reg. v. Boulton, 1 Den. C. C. 508; 2 C. & K. 917; 13 Jur., 1034; 19 L. J., M. C. 67; 3 Cox, C. C. 576. The prisoner, knowing that some old country bank notes had been taken by his uncle forty years before, and that the bank had stopped payment, gave them to a man to pass, telling him to say, if asked about them, that he had taken them from a man he did not know. The man passed the notes, and the prisoner obtained value for them. appeared that the bankers were made bankrupt :-Held, that he was guilty of obtaining money by false pretences. Reg. v. Dowey, 17 L. T., N. S. 481; 16 W. R. 344; 37 L. J., M. C. 52; 11 Cox, C. C. 115 -C. C. R. It A., by means of false pretences, engaged with the prosecutrix for lodging at 10s. a week. He accordingly became a lodger in her house, and a few days afterwards expressed a wish to become a boarder. He was then supplied with board as well as lodging at 17. 18. per week. He was afterwards indicted for obtaining goods (the board) by means of false pretences, and convicted:-Held, that the conviction could not be supported, as the goods were sup. plied too remotely from the false pretence. Reg. v. Gardner, Dears. & B. C. C. 40; 2 Jur., N. S. 598; 25 L. J., M. C. 100. A conviction for obtaining a chattel by false pretences is good, although the chattel is not in existence at the time of the pretence being made, provided the subsequent delivery of the chattel is directly connected with the false pretence. Reg. v. Martin, 1 L. R., C. C. 56; 36 L. J., M. C. 20; 10 Cox, C. C. 383. Whether or not there is such a direct connexion is a question for the jury. Ib. 3. Cheats. Indictable.-If there is a plan to cheat a man of his property, under colour of a bet, and he parts with the possession only to deposit it as a stake with one of the confederates; the taking by such confederate is felonious. Rex v. Robson, R. & R. C. C. 413. To obtain property from another by the practice of ring-dropping is felony, if the jury finds it was obtained under a preconceived design to steal it.-Rex v. Patch, 1 Leach, C. C. 238; 2 East, P. C. 678; S. P. Rex v. Marsh, 1 Leach, C. C. 345. A person who induces another to deliver bank notes to him, by the practice of ring-dropping, on a condition that if he does not restore them in such a time, the entire value of the ring will belong to the person delivering the notes, is guilty of felony; for, although the possession of the notes is parted with, the property still remains in the owner. Rex v. Watson, 2 Leach, C. C. 640; 2 East, P. C. 680. It is an indictable offence if two effect a cheat by means of one pretending to be a merchant, and the other a broker, and as such bartering pretended wines for hats. Rex v. Macarty, 2 East, P. C. 823. If a man in the course of his trade, openly carried on, puts a false mark or token upon a spurious article, so as to pass it off as a genuine one, and the article is sold and money obtained by means of the false mark or token, he is guilty of a cheat at common law. Reg. v. Closs, Dears. & B. C. C. 460; 3 Jur., N. S. 1309; 27 L. J., M. C. 54. If a person knowingly sells as an original, a copy of a picture, with the painter's name imitated upon it, and by means of the imitated name, knowingly and fraudulently induces another to buy and pay for the picture as a genuine work of the artist, he may be indicted for a cheat at common law, by means of a false token; but he cannot be indicted for forging, or uttering the forged name of the painter; for the crime of forgery must be committed with some document in writing, and does not extend to the fraudulent imitation of a name put on a picture merely as a mark to identify it as the painter's work. Ib. Indictment.]-An indictment for such an offence must contain an averment that it was by means of such false mark or token that he was enabled to pass off the article and obtain the money. Ib. In an indictment under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17, for winning money at cards by fraud, unlawful device and ill practice, it is not necessary to state to whom the money belonged. Reg. v. Moss, Dears. & B. C. C. 104; 2 Jur., N. S. 1196; 26 L. J., M. Ć. 9; 7 Cox, C. C. 200. To aid and assist a person to the jurors unknown, to obtain money by the practice of ring-dropping, is felony, if the jury finds that the prisoner was confederating with the person 4. unknown to obtain the money by means of this practice. Rex v. Moore, 1 Leach, C. C. 314; 2 East, P. C. 679. Inducing Persons by Fraud to execute or destroy Valuable Securities. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 90, "whosoever, with intent to defraud |
