66

66

66

or injure any other person, shall by any false pretence fraudulently cause or induce any other person to execute, make, accept, indorse or destroy the whole or any part "of any valuable security, or to write, impress or affix his name, "or the name of any other person, or of any company, firm or copartnership, or the seal of any body corporate, company or society, upon any paper or parchment, in order that the same may "be afterwards made or converted "into or used or dealt with as a "valuable security, shall be guilty "of a misdemeanor." (Previous enactment, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 47.)

66

66

Inducing a person by a false pretence to accept a bill of exchange, was not an obtaining a valuable security by a false pretence within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53. Reg. v. Danger, Dears. & B. C. C. 307; 3 Jur., N. S. 1011.; 26 L. J., M. C. 185; 7 Cox, C. C. 303.

66

66

66

5. Amounting to Larceny.

By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88, "if upon the trial of any person in"dicted for the misdemeanor of obtaining by any false pretence "from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security, "with intent to defraud, it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny, "he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such "misdemeanor, and no person tried "for such misdemeanor shall be "liable to be afterwards prosecuted "for larceny upon the same facts.' To prevent a person indicted for false pretences from being acquitted on the ground that the offence is that of felony, the false pretences laid must be proved, for under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88, he is to be found guilty of the misdemeanor. Reg. v. Bulmer, L. & C. 476; 9 Cox, C. C. 492; 10 Jur.,

N. S. 684; 33 L. J., M. C. 171; 10 L. T., N. S. 580.

If a banker's clerk tells a customer of the house that he has paid in money on his account, and thereby induces the customer to give him a cheque for the amount, which he receives the money for, and afterwards makes fictitious entries in the books, to prevent a discovery of the transaction, it is a felonious taking of the money from the banker, without his consent, and not an obtaining of it under false pretences. Rex v. Hammon, 2 Leach, C. C. 1083; 4 Taunt. 304; R. & R. C. C. 221.

To obtain goods by false pretences from the servant of the owner, to whom they were delivered for the purpose of being carried to a customer, who had purchased them, is a taking from the possession of the master; and if so taken, with a preconcerted design to steal them, amounts to felony. Rex v. Wilkins, 1 Leach, C. C. 520; 2 East, P. C. 673.

Where a man pretending to be the servant of a person who had bought a chest of tea deposited at the company's warehouse, got a request paper and permit for the chest, and took it away with the assent of a person in the East India Company's service, who had the charge of it:-Held, to be felony. Rex v. Hench, R. & R. C. C. 163.

A., employed in a tannery, clandestinely removed certain skins of leather from the warehouse to another part of the tannery, for the purpose of delivering them to the foreman and getting paid for them as if they had been his own work: -Held, that this did not amount to larceny, but an attempt to commit the misdemeanor of obtaining money by false pretences. Reg. v. Holloway, 1 Den. C. C. 370; T. & M. 48; 3 New Sess. Cas. 410; 2 C. & K. 942; 13 Jur. 86; 18 L. J., M. C. 60.

When one servant obtains from another, by means of a false pre

13 Jur. 1045; 19 L. J., M. C. 65; 3 Cox, C. C. 483.

An indictment charging the defendant with obtaining money by false pretences, is insufficient, if it does not shew what the false pretences were. Rex v. Mason, 1 Leach, C. C. 487; 2 East, P. C. 837; 2 T. R. 581.

Indictment for falsely pretending to the prosecutor, whose mare and gelding had strayed, that he, prisoner, would tell him where they were, if he would give him a sovereign down. The prosecutor gave the sovereign, but the prisoner refused to tell-Conviction held bad; the indictment should have stated that he pretended he knew where they Rex v. Douglas, 1 M. C. C.

were. 462.

A first count charged that the defendant unlawfully did falsely pretend to J. L. that he, the defendant, was sent by W. P. for an order to go to J. B. for a pair of shoes, by means of which false pretence he did obtain from J. B. a pair of shoes, of the goods and chattels of J. B., with intent to defraud J. L. of the price of the said shoes, to wit, nine shillings, of the monies of J. L. The second count charged that he falsely pretended to J. L., that W. P. had said that J. L. was to give him, the defendant, an order to go to J. B. for a pair of shoes, by means of which false pretence he did obtain from J. B., in the name of J. L., a pair of shoes of the goods of J. B., with intent to defraud J. L. of the same;-Held, that both of these counts were bad in arrest of judgment, as neither of them charged a sufficient false pretence. Reg. v. Tully, 9 C. & P. 227-Gurney. Sed quære, see Reg. v. Brown, 2 Cox, C. C. 348-per Patteson.

An indictment is bad charging that the defendant, contriving and intending to cheat W., on a day named, did falsely pretend to him that he, the defendant, then was a captain in her Majesty's fifth regi

ment of dragoons; by means of which false pretence he did obtain of W. a valuable security, to wit, an order for the payment of 5007., of the value of 500l., the property of W., with intent to cheat W. of the same; whereas, in truth, he was not, at the time of making such false pretence, a captain in her majesty's regiment; and the defendant, at the time of making such false pretence, well knew that he was not a captain is a good indictment after conviction and judgment; for it was not necessary to allege more precisely that the defendant made the particular pretence with the intent of obtaining the security; nor how the particular pretence was calculated to effect, or had effected, the obtaining and the truth of the pretence was well negatived, it appearing sufficiently that the pretence was, that the defendant was a captain at the time of his making such pretence, which was the fact denied; and it was unnecessary to aver expressly that the security was unsatisfied, at any rate since 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 21, the objection being taken after verdict, and the indictment following the words of the statute creating the offence. Hamilton v. Reg. (in error), 9 Q. B. 271 ; 10 Jur. 1028; 16 L. J., M. C. 9; 2 Cox, C. C. 11.

Intent to defraud.]—An indictment stated that A. did unlawfully attempt and endeavour fraudulently, falsely and unlawfully to obtain from the Agricultural Cattle Insurance Company a large sum of money, to wit, 221. 10s., with intent to cheat and defraud the company :Held, first, that the nature of the attempt was not sufficiently set forth. Reg. v. Marsh, 1 Den. C. C. 505; T. & M. 192; 3 New Sess. Cas. 699; 13 Jur. 1010; 19 L. J., M. C. 12.

A., the servant of B., rendered an account to B. of 141. 1s. 2d. as due from A. to his workmen, and

B. gave A. a cheque for the amount. | All that sum was so due except 7s., which A. kept when he got the cheque cashed, and paid the workmen the residue. In one count of an indictment for false pretences it was charged that, by this false pretence, A. obtained the check of B. with intent to defraud him of the same. It was objected that the intent was only to defraud B. of a part of the proceeds of the cheque. A. was convicted; and the judges held the conviction right, and that the evidence supported the count. Reg. v. Leonard, 3 Cox, C. C. 284; 1 Den. C. C. 304.

An indictment alleging that the defendant falsely pretended a sum of money, a parcel of a certain larger sum, was due and owing to him for work which he had executed for the prosecutors, is not an allegation of a false pretence of an existing fact, as the allegation might be satisfied by evidence of a mere matter of opinion, either as regarded fact or law; and therefore the indictment is bad. Reg. v. Oates, Dears. C. C. 459; 1 Jur., N. S. 429; 24 L. J., M. C. 123; 6 Cox, C. C. 540.

An indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences must state the false pretences with certainty, so that it may clearly appear that there was a false pretence of an existing fact. Reg. v. Henshaw, L. & C. 444; 9 Cox, C. C. 472; 10 Jur., N. S. 595; 33 L. J., M. C. 132; 12 W. R. 751; 10 L. T., N. S. 428.

In an indictment alleging that the prisoner pretended to A.'s representative that she was to give him 20s. for B., and that A was going to allow B. 16s. per week, it does not sufficiently appear that there was any false pretence of an existing fact. Ib.

An indictment alleging that the prisoners falsely pretended to A. that some soot which they then delivered to A. weighed one ton and seventeen cwt., whereas it did not

weigh one ton seventeen cwt., but only weighed one ton and thirteen cwt., they well knowing the pretence to be false, by means of which false pretence they obtained from A. 88. with intent to defraud, is good, and sufficiently describes an indictable false pretence. Reg. v. Lee, L. & C. 418; 9 Cox, C. C. 460; 32 L. J., M. C. 129; 12 W. R. 750; 10 L. T., N. S. 348.

Upon a charge of obtaining money by false pretences, it is sufficient if the actual substantial pretence, which is the main inducement to part with the money, is alleged in the indictment, and proved; although it may be shewn by evidence that other matters not laid in the indictment in some measure operated upon the mind of the prosecutor as an inducement for him to part with his money. Reg. v. Hewgill, Dears. C. C. 351; 2 C. L. R. 600; 18 Jur. 158.

An indictment stating that, by the rules of a benefit society, every free member was entitled to 5l. on the death of his wife; and that the defendant falsely pretended that a paper which he produced was genuine, and contained a true account of his wife's death and burial, and that he further falsely pretended that he was entitled to 57. from the society, by virtue of their rules, in consequence of the death of his wife, by means of which last-mentioned false pretence he obtained money, is good. Reg. v. Dent, 1 C. & K. 249 -Rolfe.

In an indictment, the pretence averred in some of the counts was that the prisoner falsely pretended that he having executed work, there was a sum of money due and owing to him for and on account of the work, being parcel of a larger sum claimed by him, whereas there was not then due and owing to him such money, being parcel of a larger sum. The false pretence averred in other counts was that the prisoner falsely pretended that there was due and

owing to him the whole amount of a sum of money for and on account of work executed by him, whereas there was not then due and owing to him the whole amount of such sum of money, but only a smaller sum:-Held, that the indictment was bad, inasmuch as a false pretence of an existing fact was not sufficiently alleged, and the averments would be proved by evidence of a mere wrongful overcharge. Reg. v. Oates, Dears. C. C. 459; 3 C. L. R. 661; 1 Jur., N. S. 429; 24 L. J., M. C. 123.

Allegation of Ownership of Property.]-An indictment for obtaining goods by means of false pretences, with intent to defraud a specified person, was bad, unless it stated whose property the goods were, and the defect was not aided after verdict, under 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 21. Reg. v. Martin, 3 N. & P. 472; 8 A. & E. 481; 1 W. W. & H. 380; 2 Jur. 515; S. P. Reg. v. Norton, 8 C. & P. 196.

By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 8, it shall be sufficient, in an indictment for obtaining property by false pretences, to allege that the defendant did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging the intent of the defendant to be to defraud any particular person. By s. 25, every objection to an indictment for any formal defect apparent on the face thereof shall be taken before the jury shall be sworn :-Held, that sect. 8 did not render it unnecessary, in an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses, to state whose property the money was, and that the omission was not a formal defect within sect. 25. Sill v. Reg. (in error), Dears. C. C. 132; 1 El. & Bl. 553; 17 Jur. 207; 22 L. J., M. C. 41. See 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88, suprà, which renders an allegation of ownership unnecessary.

An indictment for false pretences, alleging that the prisoner obtained "from A. a cheque for the sum of

87. 14s. 6d. of the monies of B." is a sufficient allegation that the cheque was the property of B. Reg. v. Godfrey, Dears. & B. C. C. 426; 4 Jur., N. S. 146; 27 L. J., M. C. 151 ; 7 Cox, C. C. 392.

In an indictment framed upon 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17, charging that the prisoner, by fraud in playing at cards, did win from A. to B. a sum of money with intent to cheat A., it is not necessary to allege that the money won was the property of A. Reg. v. Moss, Dears. & B. C. C. 104; 2 Jur., N. S. 1196; 26 L. J., M. C. 9.

But an indictment for a conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretences, not stating whose property the goods were which it was the object of the conspiracy to obtain, is bad, in arrest of judgment. Reg. v. Parker, 2 G. & D. 709; 3 Q. B. 292.

8. Evidence.

When a false pretence is contained in a letter which is lost, the prisoner may be convicted, if parol evidence is given of the contents of the letter. Rex v. Chadwick, 6 Č. & P. 181-Tindal.

It is not necessary to prove the whole of the pretence charged; proof of part of the pretence, and that the money was obtained by such part, is sufficient. Rex v. Hill, R. & R. C. C. 190.

A. was indicted for obtaining a specific sum of money from B. by false pretences. He was employed by his master to take orders, but not to receive monies, and he was proved to have obtained the specific sum from B. by representing that he was authorised by his master to receive it. Evidence of his having, within a week afterwards, obtained another sum from another person by a similar false pretence, such obtaining not being mentioned in the indictment in any way, is not admissible for the purpose of proving the intent when he committed the