Copyright
William Oldnall Russell.

A treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) online

. (page 51 of 178)
Online LibraryWilliam Oldnall RussellA treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) → online text (page 51 of 178)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


to give notice to the party of what be is to come prepared to defend ;
and, to prevent his being distracted amidst tbe confusion of a multifa-
rious and complicated transaction, parts of which only arc meant to be
impeached for falsehood. The legislature have expounded their under-
standing of the matter in the case of perjury; and I am at a loss to dis-
cover why, in reason, in justice, and in mercy to the party, tbe charge
in tbis case should not be as distinctly ascertained by proper averments
that specifically draw his attention to it, as in tbe case of pcrjury."(?i')
It appears from this case that it is not necessary that the whole of what
is stated in order to obtain the property should be false ; it is sufficient
if part is false ; provided that part has a material eficct in inducing the
party defrauded to give up bis property, (.r)

In a case which has been previously mentioned, on another point, (^) oO/
an objection was taken that the pretence was not stated *witb sufficient ^^^ *" ^'"*
(crtainti/, inasmuch as a wager therein mentioned was stated only to with whicii
have been made « with a colonel in the army, then at Bath," without ^ ^^^^'^ Pre-
setting forth the colonel's name. (2) But the objection was overruled ; gij^uj^ ba
and Lord Kenyon, C. J., said, that tbe charge was sufficiently certain stated,
to enable the defendants to know what they were called upon to answer
for ; and that perhaps the colonel's name with whom the wager was
stated to have been made was not mentioned ; in wbicb case he could
not have been described with greater accuracy. And further, that if
such a wager had been actually depending, it was competent to the de-
fendants to have proved it in their defence, f

It is sufficient to state the eflfect of tbe pretence correctly, and tbcltissuffi-
very words used need not be stated. The indictment alleged that the ^J]^"^ ^^
prisoner did falsely pretend that he was tbe servant of one T. Groves, oiTfct of
of Gloucester, butcher, and that be was sent by the said Groves to look 1^^,.^'^^^^
at two heifers, the property of the prosecutor, for the said Groves, and rectly.
that he was sent by the said Groves to buy the said heifers of the pro-

" (w) Rex V. Perrott, 1814. 2 M. & S. 379, 386. (z) And see Rex v. m\\, post, 310.
\y\ Rex t'. Young and others, ante, 288, et seq.
(r) See the abstract of the indictment, ante, p. 287.

f [Wlicn a signature to a note has been obtained by false pretences, and the party de-
frauded has been obliged to pay the note, the indictment may charge the sum paid to
have l)cen obtained by fal.=e pretences, without setting forth the obtaining of the signature.
The People v. Ilcrrick, "l3 Wend. 87.

An indictment for false pretences need not state all the property which the defendant ob-
tained by the false pretences set forth. The People v. Parish, 4 Dcnio, 153.

The offence of cheating by false pretences is, in judgment of law, committed when the
false pretences are successfully used, and when the money or property is obtained, although
the fraud originated and was contrived elsewhere. People v. Adams, 3 Denio, 100.

An allegation in an indictment that the defendant obtained goods of A., B. and C, part-
ners in trade, by false pretences made to them, is supported by proof that the defendant
made the alleged false pretences to a clerk or salesman. Commonwealth v. Hurley, 7 llct-
calf, 462.]



307 OF CHEATING, ETC., BY FALSE TOKENS [bOOK IV. /

secutor foi* the said Groves, and that tlie said Groves would buy the said
heifers for the sum of 2Sl. lOs., and that the said Groves would pay the
prosecutor the said sum of 23/. 10s. for the said heifers, and that the
said G roves would be over on the next Thursday, and would pay'' the
prosecutor for the said heifers on that day. The evidence was, that the
prisoner said he came from Groves, &c., and that either Groves or him-
self would be over the following Thursday; and it was submitted that
the indictment was supported ; first it was sufficient to state the eifect
of the evidence correctly, and that the allegation that the prisoner was
sent by Groves was supported by proving that he said " he came from
Groves." Secondly, that the alternative that the prisoner would him-
self come was a mere naked lie, on which no indictment could be sup-
ported, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to state it in the indictment ;
and Littlcdale, J., held that the evidence was sufficient to support the
indictment; and the prisoner was convicted. (a)
Indictment An indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences must state them
must state ^^ ^g ^^^ property of some person, and it is not sufficient to state that
to be tho they were obtained from a person with intent to defraud that person of
property of the same. The indictment stated that the defendant made certain false
eon. ' pretences, by means of which he obtained from S. Yates a certain sum
of money, with intent to cheat and defraud the said S. Yates of the same.
Alderson, B., " There is an objection to the indictment in this case. The
money which has been obtained is not laid to be the property of any
person, which it ought to be, in order to exclude a subsequent indictment
for larceny. It would be impossible to plead an acquittal or conviction
on this indictment in bar to a prosecution for larceny under the provi-
Ifitdo notsions of the statute." And the court ordered the indictment to be
afte - c(iiashed.(6) And if such an indictment omit to state to whom the goods
diet. belonged, is bad upon error, and the defect is not cured by the 7 Geo.

*308 4, c. Qi, s. 21. (c) The indictment stated that the *defendants made
certain false pretences, and that they thereby obtained from W. J. Holt,
divers goods and merchandises, with intent then and there to cheat and
defraud the said W. J. Holt of the same ; and the defendants having
been convicted and sentenced to be transported, error was brought upon
the judgment, on the ground, among others, that it was not stated in
the indictment that the goods were the property of any person ; and
the court held that the indictment was clearly bad upon the face of it,
and that it was not made good after verdict by the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s.
21; for that enactment assumes that the words shall be so employed as
to show that some offence had been committed ; and there were many
instances in which, if merely the statutory form were followed, no of-
fence would be charged, in which cases it would not be sufficient to de-
scribe the offence in the words of the act. Thus it would not be enough
to charge the stealing goods in a dwelling-house, the destroying a will,
the taking pigeons, without adding whose goods, whose will, whose
pigeons, (cc)
Heed's Where an indictment alleged that the prisoner having in his posses-

case. g-Qj^ ^ certain iron weight, of the weight of twenty-eight pounds and

no more, on, &c., did falsely pretend that a certain quantity of coals,

(a) Rex V. John Scott, Hereford Spr. Ass. 1832, cited in Rex v. Parker, ante, p. 300.
(h) Reg. V. Norton,* 8 C. & P. 19G, Alderson, B., Williams and Coltman, Js.
(c) Ante, p. 115. (cc) Reg. v. Martin,!' 8 Ad. & E. 481.

' Eng. Com.La'iv- Reps, xxxiv. 350. •> lb. xxiv. 443.



CnAP. XXXI. § II.] AND FALSE PRETENCES. 308

which he then and there delivered to and upon the premises of the
prosecutor, weighed sixteen cwt., (meaning one thousand seven hun-
dred and ninety -two pounds weight;) that the said coals were worth
the sum of 1^., and that the said iron weight was a half-hundredweight,
(meaning of the standard weight of fifty-six pounds;) by means of
which false pretences he unlawfully obtained one sovereign, with intent
to cheat the prosecutor of part thereof, to wit, the sum of 10s., ('/) and
then negatived the pretences ; after a verdict of guilty, it was moved
in arrest of judgment, that all the false pretences, except that relating
to the false weight, were no more than 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 ; and, upon a case reserved, the judges held
that the indictment was bad, and the conviction wrong.(r)

Where an indictment for false pretences stated that the defendants,
Henderson and Barlow, did falsely pretend to F. Pawson, that he the
said J. Barlow was then and there possessed of a certain sum of money,
to wit, the sum of 12^., '' and that if Pawson would exchange his mare
for Henderson's horse, Barlow was ready to purchase the horse of
Pawson and pay him 12^.; by means of which false pretence, the de-
fendants obtained the mare from Pawson with intent to defraud him of
the same ; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said J. Barlow was not
then and there possessed of the said sum of 121. , and was not then and
there ready and willing to purchase the said horse of the said F. Paw-
son, and was not then and there ready and willing to pay the said F.
Pawson the said sum of 12/." And it was held, upon a case reserved,
that the indictment was bad, as it did not allege that the defendants or
either of them knew that Barlow had not the money, and did even
charge that the defendants did knowingly falsely pretend that Barlow
had the sum of 12/. (ce) In the same case the defendants pleaded a
plea of autrefois acquit, which stated that the defendants were indicted
for stealing a mare of J. Pawson, and were acquitted; and averred the
identity of the defendants, of F. Pawson, and the mare, and that the
taking of the mare in the former indictment, and the obtaining the
mare in the present indictment, were one and the same, and that the
larceny to which the obtaining the mare would amount, if, upon the
trial, on the indictment now pending, it should be proved that they ob-
tained the mare in such manner as to amount to larceny, and the said
larceny of which the defendants had been acquitted, were one and the
same, and not other and different larcenies; and upon demurrer to this
plea it was held, upon a case reserved, that the plea was bad, as it did
not show that the pri.soners had been in jeopardy for the misdemeanor
charged in this indictment, and t he first ac<|uittal might have been on
the ground that the offence did not amount to a felony .(_//") It is con-
ceived that no i^lea of autrefois acquit on an indictment for felony,
could bo successfully pleaded to an indictment for obtaining goods by
false pretences, unless it could be averred and proved that the facta

{<!) QiicBre, whether the indictment was not bad, on the ground that it did not state the
intent to' be to cheat the prosecutor of the sovereign : the words of the act were with in-
tent to cheat " of the same." See ante, p. 287. C. S. G.

(e) Rex V. Rced,» 7 C. & P. 848.

(cc) Reg. V. Henderson,'' 1 C. & Mars. 328, and yirrErskino, J. "He might have had liic
money five minutes before, and iiave got his pocket picked."

(JT) Reg. t'. Henderson, supra.

» En^. Com. Law Reps, xxxii. 70G. i> lb. xli. 183.



308 OF CHEATING, ETC., BY FALSE TOKENS [BOOK IV.

amounted to a larceny, because unless that wore so the defendant could
not have been convicted of the larceny. But that an acquittal on an
indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences might in all cases be
successfully pleaded to an indictment for stealing the same goods, as on
such an indictment for obtaining goods, the prisoner might have been
convicted, although the facts amounted to a larceny. C. S. G.
Tully'3 Where the first count of an indictment charged that the prisoner did

case. falsely pretend to J. Lovelock that he was sent by W. P. for an order

to go to Bracey's (meaning J. Bracey, a shoe factor) for a pair of high
shoes : by means of which false pretence he unlawfully obtained from
the said J. Bracey one pair of shoes of the goods and chattels of the
said J. Bracey, with intent to cheat the said J. Loveloch of the price
and valne of the said shoes, to wit, of the sum of nine shillings of the
moneys of the said J. Lovelock ; and the second count charged that the
prisoner did falsely pretend to the said J. Lovelock that W. P. had said
that the said J. Lovelock was to give him an order to go to Bracey's
for a pair of high shoes ; by means of which false pretence he unlaw-
fully obtained from the said J. Bracey, in the name of the said J.
Lovelock, one pair of shoes, of the goods and chattels of the said J.
Bracey, tcith intent to cheat the said J. Loveloch oi the same; the
*309 prisoner having pleaded guilty, judgment *was arrested on the ground
that neither count charged an ofi"ence within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, e. 29, s.

" Feloni- It has been held that if the indictment state that the prisoner ye?o-

t" d "a b'^d' '^^''^^'^(y pretended, it is bad. The indictment alleged that the prisoner

" unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly did feloniously pretend ;" and

Law, E,., thought that the indictment was bad, and after consulting

Bosanquet and Taunton, Js., stated that they were of the same opinion,

and the prisoner was therefore acquitted. (</)

Several de- It has been held that several defendants might be charged jointly in

mavTe^ the same indictment, if they were all present and in concert together,

charged taking part in the same transaction. (7i) And it was holden also to be

jointly in ^^ objection in arrest of judgment, that the indictment contained seve-

the same •" j o ;

indictment, ral charges of the same nature in the different counts. Lord Kenyon,

Ln^Tern° ^' '^■' ^^^^' " ^^^^ objection would be well founded if the legal judg-

and taking nient on each count was difi'erent ; it would be like a misjoinder in civil

part in the actions. But, in this case, the judgment on all the counts is precisely

■ the same ; a misdemeanor is charged in each. Most probably the

charges were meant to meet the same facts; but, if they were not so, I

think they may be joined in the same indictment. "(t)"|"

In general on an indictment against two charging them with a joint

(/) Reg. V. Tally,* 9 0. & P. 227, Gnrney, B., after consulting Patteson, J.

(g) Rex V. Walker,^ 6 C. & P. 657 ; but see Rex v. Garradice, Russ. & Ry. 205, ante, p.
149, where an indictment for taking fish allged them to have been " feloniously" taken,
and the judges thought that did not vitiate the indictment. C. S. G.

{h) See Reg. v. Martinj^ 8 A. & E. 481, where husband and wife were conYicted.

\i) Rex V. Young, ante, p. 287.

f [Where two persons are jointly indicted for obtaining goods by false pretences, made
designedly and with intent to defraud, evidence that one of them, with the knowledge, ap-
probation, concurrence and direction of the other, so made the false pretences charged,
warrants the conviction of both. Commonwealth v. Harley, 7 Metcalf, 462.

And it is not necessary in order to convict the defendants in such case, to prove that they,
or either of them, obtained the goods on their own account, or derived or expected to de-
rive, personally, any pecuniary benefit therefrom. Ibid.]

* Eng. Com. Law Reps, xxxviii. 92. ^ lb. xxv. 582. "= lb. xx:xv. 443.



CHAP. XXXI. § II.] AND FALSE PRETENCES. 309

offence, either may be found guilty. But they cannot be found guilty
separately of separate parts of the charge : yet if they be found guilty
separately, upon a pardon or nolle prosequi as to the one who stands
second upon the verdict, judgment may be given against the other.
Hempstead and Hudson were indicted for stealing in the dwelling-house
value 6/. 10s,, and the jury found Hempstead guilty as to part of the
articles value (SI. and Hudson guilty as to the residue. On case, the
judges held,''that judgment could not be given agaiust both, but that
upon a pardon ox nolle prosequi as to Hudson it might be given against
Hempstead, (y)

Where the goods arc obtained by a forged instrument, which falls If tliogoods
within the class of instruments, the forging of which is made felony bvr^'"''j',*'

,.,. ^ e J- ■ ^ • ,•'.•' tainod by

statute, the indictment must be tor lorging the instrument, as tlie mis- an instru-
demeanor is merged in the felony. (^y) The prisoner was indicted for '"'^?'' . .
obtaining goods by the following counterfeit instrument : foiony to

forgo, an
// nr T> indictment

"Mr. Brooks, f^.r^i,^

"Please to let the bearer, William Turton, have for J. Roe four pretences
yards of Irish linen and a waistcoat. supponed.

"John Roe."
" Jan. G, 1833."

Taunton, J., held that this was a forged request for the delivery of
goods within section 10 of the 1 Wm. 4, c. 66; that it was a felony
and not a misdemeanor, and that the prisoner must be acquitted, (/i*)

*Upon an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, the pre- *310
tences which, as we have seen, must be distinctly set out,(/) must at the The pre-
trial be proved as laid : so that, where the indictment stated that the ^^l\
defendant pretended that he had paid a sum of money into the Bank oyprored
EiKjland, and it appeared upon the evidence that he did not say that hc^'^^'^'
paid the money, but that he said generally that the monrij had been
paid into the bank. Lord EUenborough, C. J., held this to be a fatal
variance; and said, that an assertion that money had been paid into
the bank was very different from an assertion that it had been paid into
the bank by a particular individual. (??i) But it is not necessary to prove Not nocos
the whole of the pretence charged : proof of part of such pretence, and ^'^'^ *°
that the money is obtained by such part is suflScient. An indictment the proter
on the repealed statute 30 Geo. 2, charged the prisoner with obtaining*=**^ J P''°°f
money under colour of obtaining a pension for a discharge seaman, by that the
falsely pretending that the prisoner had received an answer by letter, in monoy wm
reply to an application he had made on the seaman's behalf, that two °,j!^t'p^rt, u
guineas must be sent to the under clerks as fees, iohich tliri/ always sM^c'ianx.
(xpectedf and that nothing could he done without it. There was no evi-
dence that the prisoner used that part of the pretence in italics, but there
was evidence that he used the residue, and by means thereof obtained
the money : and on a point saved, the court held it not necessary that

(/) Rext>. Hempstead, Mich. T. 1818. MS. Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry. 344.
{jj) Foster, 373.

[k) Rex V. Evans,* 5 C. & P. 553. See other similar cases in the Chapter on Larceny,
post. {I) Ante, 306.

(m) Rex V. Plestow, cor. Lord EUenborough, C. J., 1808. 1 Canipb. 494.

» Eng. Com. Lr^w Reps. xxiv. 453.



310 OF CHEATING, ETC, BY FALSE TOKENS [BOOK IV.

the wliole of tlio pretence charged should have been proved, and that

the conviction was right. (?A
Troof of But the rule that it is sufficient to prove any part of the pretences

part of j^jj j£ ^YiQ property were obtained thereby, must be confined to those

protonces it. i • i i r- • /<

so con- cases where such part is a separate and independent pretence ; lor it
noctod to- f.^|gg pretences are so connected together upon the record that one can-
thoy cannot not be Separated from the other, and the statement that one of those
bo severed pretences is insufficient in point of law, no judgment can be given upon
cient. " t^^^ other pretence. The iudictment stated that the prisoner "did falsely
pretend to W. "Walker that he was a captain iu the service of the East
India Company, and that a certain promissory note, which he then and
there produced and delivered to the said W. Walker, purporting to be
made for the payment of the sum of 211., was a good and valuable secu-
rity for the sum of 211.;" " whereas the defendant was not a captain in
the service of the East India Company, and whereas the said promissory
note was not a good and valuable security for the sum of 211., or for
any other sum of money whatsoever." Upon error, it was objected
amongst other things, that the allegations respecting the note were too
loose. No description of the note was given. The record did not show
who was the maker, nor when the note was payable. Something ought
to have been stated to identify it, and the indictment ought to have
shown how the note proved not to be a valuable security. It might
have been a forgery, or invalid, for want of a stamp. The record ought
*311 to show that the defendant knew the instrument to *be worthless. It
might have been a note drawn by himself, and then so far as it was a
token, it was a true one. On the part of the crown it was admitted that
the defendant's knowledge was not alleged, except by the words "false-
ly" and "fraudulently," which was not sufficient, and the note was not
set out so as to identify it. But the false pretence of being a captain
in the East India Company's service was properly alleged, and bore out
the conviction. The crime as charged being made up of two false pre-
tences it must be presumed that the judge would tell the jury that one
of them was so laid as not to call for an answer, (o) Lord Denman, C
J., " The indictment here omits to say in what respect the note was not
valuable. It may have been for want of a stamp or from other causes. We
do not mean to throw any doubt on the late decisions, and there is
much of the argument for the defendant below in which we do not con-
cur. But the pretences stated in this indictment must be taken to-
gether, and the falsification as to that part which relates to the note is
not sufficient. The judgment must therefore be reversed." Patteson,
.J., "I do not know that I should have gone the whole length of revers-
ing this judgment if the note had appeared to be that of another per-
son ; but consistently with this indictment, the note may have been the
defendant's own, and then the pretences are so connected together that
we cannot separate them."(j9)

(n) Res V. Hill, East. T. 1811, MS. Baj-ley, J., and Russ.& Ily. 190. In Rex v. Ady,» 1 C"
& P. 140, Patteson, J., said, " It is not necessary that all the pretences should be false. If
you believe that any one of them was false, and that the mind of the prosecutor was operated
upon by it, then you will find the defendant guilty." See per Coleridge, J., in Rex v. Dale,
post, p. 310.

(o) Lord Denman, C. J., observed, " Can we presume on a writ of error? On a special
verdict it might have been stated that the jury convicted as to one pretence, but negatived
tlie other."

(p) Reg. V. Wickham,'' 10 Ad. & E. 34. Littledale and Coleridge, Js., concurred.
» Eng. Com. Law Reps, xxxii. 469. ^ lb. xxxvii. 29.



CHAP. XXXI. § II.] AND FALSE PRETENCES. 311

It must be shown that the prisoner obtained the goods by means of Tho pooda
some of the false pretences laid in the indictment. The indictment sta- ^"^[00^ by
ted that the prisoner did falsely pretend that he was a gentleman's ser- means of
vant, that he had lived in Brecon, and that he had bouirht twenty hor- ^°'""' '^^^^^

o •/ pretences

ses in Brecon fair, and that he thereby obtained a fdly from the prose- lai<l in the
cutor. The pretences were proved to have been made by the prisoner iudictmcnt.
as stated in the indictment, but it was also proved that the prosecutor
sold the filly to the prisoner for 11/., and that the prisoner said he had
twenty other horses at the Cross Keys at Brecon, and that if the prose-
cutor would take the horse that the prisoner had got at the Cross Keys,
he would come down there in about half an hour, and pay the prosecu-
tor for the filly. The prosecutor then delivered the filly to the prisoner,
and took the prisoner's horse to the Cross Keys, where he ascertained
the prisoner's statement to be fiilse. In his cross-examination, the pro-
secutor said, that he delivered the filly to the prisoner, because he be-
lieved that the prisoner would call at the Cross Keys and pay him, and
not because he believed him to be a gentleman's servant, or lived at
Brecon, or had purchased twenty horses. Coleridge, J., told the jury,
" The question for you to consider is, whether the prosecutor parted
with his filly by reason of his having believed any false pretence made
use of by tho prisoner. It is sufficient for the prosecutor to prove
that any one of the false pretences charged in the indictment was false,
and that he parted with his filly by reason of such false pretence, the
prisoner intended to defraud him thereby. However, in this case, the
prosecutor himself says that be parted with his filly because the
prisoner promised to pay him, and not on account of any *of the *312
false pretences charged. If you think that was so you will acquit the



Online LibraryWilliam Oldnall RussellA treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) → online text (page 51 of 178)