Purchasing of a pretenced title by him that is in posses sion, is law ful. Note. also the value of the said lands, tenements, or hereditaments, so by him bought or taken as is abovesaid; the one half of the said forfeitures to be to the king our sovereign lord, and the other half to the party that will sue for the same in any of the king's courts of record, by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information; in which action, bill, plaint, or information, no essoin, protection, wager of law, nor injunction, shall be allowed. IV. Provided alway, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall be lawful to any person or persons being in lawful possession, by taking of the yearly farm, rents, or profits, of or for any manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to buy, obtain, get, or have, by any reasonable ways or means, the pretenced right or title of any other person or persons, hereafter to be made to, of, or in such manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereof he or they shall so be in lawful possession; any thing in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding. VI. Provided alway, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this act shall not extend to charge any person or persons with any of the penalties mentioned in the said act, for any offence by him or them committed, contrary to the said act, except the same person or persons so offending be sued thereof by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information in any of the king's courts, within one year next after the same offence, by him or them committed, as is aforesaid. Persons having only a bare right to lands, as disseisees before entry, are within this statute: Co. Litt. 369, a. Obtaining under false pretences, a misdemeanor. CHEATING. See also tits. "Embezzlement," and "Gaming.” 7 & 8 Geo, 4, c. 29. LIII. Whereas a failure of justice frequently arises money, &c. from the subtle distinction between larceny and fraud; for remedy thereof, be it enacted, that if any person shall, by any false pretence, obtain from any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or to suffer such other punishment, by fine or imprisonment, or No acquit by both, as the court shall award; provided always, that if, upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanor, it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to tal, on the ground that the case proved amounts to larceny. larceny, he shall not, by reason thereof, be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor; and no such indictment shall be removable by certiorari; and no person tried for such misdemeanor shall be liable to be afterwards prosecuted for larceny upon the same facts. Note. The stat. 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, and the 52 Geo. 3, c. 64 (extending the provisions of the former act) provided punishments for "all persons who, knowingly and designedly, by false pretence or pretences, should obtain from any person or persons (or from any body politic or corporate, any) money, goods, wares, or merchandizes (or any bond, bill of exchange, bank note, promissory note, or other security for the payment of money, or any warrant or order for the payment of money, or delivery or transfer of goods, or other valuable thing), with intent to cheat or defraud any person or persons (or any body politic or corporate), of the same." These acts, so far as regards this subject, are repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27. The new enactment above stated is nearly the same as the old; but the proviso at the conclusion has effected an alteration in the law as to cheating, the utility of which is worthy of remark. In all cases of cheat. ing, there is a privity of contract between the cheat and the person cheated. On the contrary, it is of the essence of larceny, that the goods should be taken invito domino. In the former case, the privity of contract is not broken, so long as the cheat takes no more than has been delivered to him by virtue of the contract. If, therefore, he thus obtain the absolute property in a thing, it is no felony in him to convert that property to his own use, and he is still a mere cheat. But if he dispose of more than the contract gives him; if, for instance, having gained by it only the possession, he dispose of the pro perty in any thing, there the privity is at once determined; and, if he be proved to have had originally animum furandi, (or a desire to steal beyond the contract) he is not merely a cheat, but a felon. Now, in the absence of a proviso like the present, it was obviously a frequent consequence of these distinctions to effect a total failure of justice; for upon an indictment for the misdemeanor of cheating, the prisoner too often escaped by reason of the difficulty of steering clear of evidence of felony. The present enactment, however, remedies this evil, in cases which are within its scope. It may further be observed, that by the repeal of the 33 He. 8, c. 1, (the Privy Token Act) and also of parts of the 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, and 52 Geo. 3, c. 64, as before mentioned, the offence of cheating is now reduced to two kinds : namely, cheating at common law, and cheating under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29. Now, cheating at common law is confined to the fraudulent obtaining the property of another by any deceitful and illegal practice, or token (short of felony) which affects the public, 2 E. P. C. 118, as cheating by means of false weights, &c. It follows, therefore, that most cases of cheating will come under the present statute, and the rules of construction applicable to the former statutes are equally applicable to this. Thus, the new act being only a re-enactment of the 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, will have the same effect as the latter statute on the 38 Hen. 8, c, 1, and will, therefore, only enlarge it, see R. v. Mason, 2 T. R. 581; and will comprehend any false token which is not of a public nature, and almost any false pretence which raises a reasonable degree of credit. The indictment on this statute must set forth the pretences, and must negative them by special averment: 2 M. & S. 379. But it is not necessary that the whole of the pretence charged should be proved proof of part of the pretence, &c. and that the money, &c. was obtained by such part, is sufficient: R. v. Hill, R. & R. 190. A few of the leading cases on the subject of cheating may here be adverted to. It has been already observed that the essence of the offence at common law is, the injury done to the public. Where an indictment at common law charged a certain brewer, for that he, intending to deceive and defraud R. W. of his money, falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully sold and delivered to him sixteen gal lons of amber, for and as eighteen gallons of the same liquor, and received fifteen shillings for the eighteen gallons, knowing there were only sixteen gallons; the court held the indictment bad, as the fraud only amounted to an imposition on this particular man, and was the subject of a civil action, and not an indictable offence: Wheatley's case, 2 E. P. C. 818. So, where a man, pretending a wish to purchase lottery-tickets, delivered to the seller a check upon a banker with whom he kept no account, this was held not to be an indictable offence at common law ib. 819, and 6 T. R. 565. But the latter, at least, of these cases, and, perhaps, the former also, if accompanied with circumstances amounting to a false pretence, might have been deemed within the meaning of the statute: see R. v. Jackson, 3 Camp. 370. The statute, indeed, makes no dis. tinction between public or private damage; and it has been laid down generally, that it extends to every case where a party has obtained money by falsely representing himself to be in a situation in which he is not; or by falsely representing any occurrence that has not happened, to which persons of ordinary caution may give credit: per Lord Kenyon, R. v.Young, 2 E. P. C. 829. Where A., B., and C. pretended to D., that A. had laid a wager with a colonel in the army at Bath, upon a certain race, and that A. and B. each went two hundred guineas, and C. the other one hundred guineas in the wager, and thus prevailed upon D. to join in it, and ultimately obtained twenty guineas from him, the court held these to be false pretences within the act : R. v. Young. It must be admitted that, in the case just cited, the credit raised by the false pretences was but slight; but, generally, the prominent feature in cases of this nature, is, a degree of credit arising from the apt combination of the false pretence with circumstances which are true, and known to the party imposed on; and it may perhaps be laid down generally, that some degree of credit is a necessary ingredient of the offence; a mere lie not being such a false pretence as to constitute cheating. Sce Pinkney's case, 2 E. P. C. 818. Where it appeared that the prisoner sent one Dale (to whom he was unknown) with a letter directed to Dunn, (written in the name of Broad, a friend of Dunn's, and requesting the loan of five pounds) the prisoner, at the same time, bidding Dale to tell Dunn that he brought the letter from Mr. Broad, and to bring the answer to him (the prisoner) in the next street, where he would wait for him, and Dale accordingly carried the letter to Dunn, who thereupon sent the money; the court held clearly that this case came within the 33 Hen. 8, c. 1, against false tokens, and was no felony: Atkinson's case, 2 E. P. C. 673. It may be observed, that, here, the degree of credit raised, was considerable. So, where a workman employed by clothiers was accustomed to deliver weekly to their clerk an account of the number of shearmen employed, and the wages due to them, and regularly received the amount to be paid off, but did not draw upon the clerk for money generally on account, and it appeared that he delivered in a false account, by which he obtained a larger sum than was due, this was held to be obtaining money by a false pretence, within the 30 G. 2, c. 24: Witchell's case, 2 E. P. C. 830. So, where a carrier obtained the money agreed to be paid by the prosecutor for the delivery of goods, by pretending that they had been duly delivered by him, but that he had lost the bailee's receipt for them, these were held to be false pretences within the statute: R. v. Airey, id. 831. It must be proved that the intent was to cheat or defraud; and it should seem that, where no regular scheme of cheating has been devised and acted on, the case will hardly come within the statute. Where a pauper, upon being urged by an overseer to work, said he could not, because he had no shoes, and the overseer accordingly supplied him, but it turned out that the prisoner had in fact, at the time, two pair of new shoes, which he had previously received from the parish, it was holden that this was not such an offence as would support an indictmeut on the statute; the statement made by the prisoner being rather a false excuse for not working, than a false pretence to obtain goods: R. v. Wakeling, R& R. 504. But, provided there be some scheme of cheating by false pretences, it seems immaterial whether those pretences be expressed by word of mouth or by letter; or whether they be implied from the acts and conduct of the party. Where, therefore, it was proved that the prisoner put off a forged note in payment for some provisions and received change, (the note not being of such a description as would support an indictment for forgery); this was held to be obtaining money under false pretences, within the statute: R. v. Freeth, R. & R. 127; and see R. v. Story, id. 81. Where the fraud, however, is properly the ground of a civil action, no indictment for obtaining money by false pretences can be supported: R. v. Codrington, 1 C. & P. 661. BULLION. 28 Edw. 1, s. 3, c. 20. Vessels of silver shall It is ordained that no goldsmith of England, nor none other, where within the king's dominion, shall from hence- gold and forth make, or cause to be made, any manner of vessel, be essayed jewel, or any other thing of gold or silver, except it be of and touched. good and true alloy ; that is to say, gold of a certain touch, and silver of the sterling alloy, or of better, at the pleasure of him to whom the work belongeth; and that none work worse silver than money; and that no manner of vessel of silver depart out of the hands of the workers, until Vessels it be essayed by the warders of the craft; and further, marked that it be marked with the leopard's head; and that they leopard's with the head. work no worse gold than of the touch of Paris. And that the wardens of the craft shall go from shop to shop among the goldsmiths, to essay if their gold be of the same touch that is spoken of before; and if they find any other than of the touch aforesaid, the gold shall be forfeit to the king. Note. As the statute is a prohibitory law, the proper remedy under it is by indictment. Though the description of the offence in this statute is not so large as in the subsequent statutes against the same offence, it has been held that it is not repealed by any of the latter, but that they only add accumulative penalties. But the knowingly exposing to sale and selling wrought gold under the sterling alloy, for gold of the true standard, though indictable in goldsmiths, is a private imposition only in a common Persons the purpose ney under false pretences. person, and the party injured is left to his civil remedy: 1 Russ. 69. Many statutes have been passed for the prevention of frauds with respect to bullion, by creating offences in making, working, putting to sale, exchanging, selling, or exporting any gold or silver manufactures of less fineness than the standards respectively fixed at the time by the several acts. But, as these are not of a general nature, and only inflict pecuniary penalties, their insertion would be foreign to the object of this work. FALSE PRETENCES BY SOLDIERS. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 4. XCVIII. Be it enacted, that any person who shall making false knowingly, wilfully, and designedly, make any false rerepresenta presentation of any particular contained in the oaths retions, for spectively marked (A.) and (B.), and certificates marked of obtaining (C.) and (D.) in the schedule to this act respectively conbounty, tained and annexed, before the justice of the peace or guilty of ob- magistrate, at the time of his attestation, for the purposes taining mo- of obtaining, and shall obtain, any enlisting-money, or any bounty for entering into his Majesty's service, or any other money, shall be deemed guilty of obtaining money under false pretence, within the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the thirtieth year of the reign of his Majesty King George the Second, intituled An Act for the more effectual Punishment of Persons who shall attain, or attempt to attain, Possession of Goods or Money by false or untrue Pretences; for preventing the unlawful Pawning of Goods; for the easy Redemption of Goods pawned; and for preventing Gaming in Public Houses by Jonrneymen, Labourers, Servants, and Apprentices; and the production of such certificate, and proof of the handwriting of the justice of the peace giving such certificate, shall be sufficient evidence of such party having represented the several particulars contained in the oath sworn by him, and specified in the certificate of the justice at the time of his being attested; and that proof by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses, that the person so prosecuted hath freely and voluntarily declared or acknowledged that at |