of these two false pretences was sufficient to bring the case within the Statute.-Reg. vs. Copeland, C. & M. 516; Reg. vs. Jennison, Leigh & Cave, 157.

Where the prisoner represented that he was connected with J. S., and that J. S. was a very rich man, and obtained goods by that false representation, it was held within the Statute.-Reg. vs. Archer, Dears. 449. Obtaining by falsely pretending to be a medical man or an attorney is within the Statute.-Reg. vs. Bloomfield, C. & M. 537; R. vs. Asterley, 7 C. & P. 191.

It is no objection that the moneys have been obtained only by way of a loan, R. vs. Crossley, 2 M. & Rob. 17; but perhaps this is true only of moneys, and not of other goods, 2 Russell, 668, and Reg. vs. Kilham, 11 Cox, 561.

Obtaining goods by false pretences intending to pay for them is within the Statute.-Reg. vs. Naylor, 10 Cox,

151.

It must be alleged and proved that the defendant knew the pretence to be false at the time of making it.-Reg. vs. Henderson, 2 Mood. 192; Reg. vs. Philpotts, 1 C. & K. 112. After verdict, however, an indictment following the words of the Statute is sufficient.-Reg. vs. Bowen, 3 Cox, 483; Hamilton vs. Reg. in error, 2 Cox, 11. It is no defence that the prosecutor laid a trap to draw the prisoner into the commission of the offence.-Reg. vs. Adamson, 2 Mood. 286; R. vs. Ady, 7 C. & P. 140.

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. vs. Hewgill, Dears. 315. The indictment must

negative the pretences by special averment, and the false pretence must be proved as laid.-Any variance will be fatal, unless amended. 3 Burn's Just. 277. But proof of part of the pretence, and that the money was obtained by such proof is sufficient.-R. vs. Hill, R. & R. 190; Reg. vs. Wickham, 10 Ad. & E. 34; Reg. vs. Bates, 3 Cox, 201.

But the goods must be obtained by means of some of the pretences laid.-Reg. vs. Dale, 7 C. & P. 352; Reg. vs. Hunt, 8 Cox, 495. And where the indictment alleged a pretence which in fact the prisoner did at first pretend, but the prosecutor parted with his property in consequence of a subsequent pretence, which was not alleged, it was held that the evidence did not support the indictment.-R. vs. Bulmer, L. & C. 476.

Where money is obtained by the joint effect of several misstatements, some of which are not and some are false pretences within the Statute, the defendant may be convicted, Reg. vs. Jennison, L. & C. 157; but the property must be obtained by means of one of the false pretences charged, and a subsequent pretence will not support the indictment.-Reg. vs. Brooks, 1 F. & F. 502.

Parol evidence of the false pretence may be given, although a deed between the parties, stating a different consideration for parting with the money is produced, such deed having been made for the purpose of the fraud. -Reg. vs. Adamson, 2 Mood. 286. So also parol evidence of a lost written pretence may be given.-R. vs. Chadwick, 6 C. & P. 181.-On an indictment for obtaining money from A., evidence that the prisoner about the same time obtained money from other persons by similar false pretences is not admissible.-Reg. vs. Holt, 8 Cox, 411; Bell, 280. But other false pretences at other times to the same person are admissible, if they are so connected as

to form one continuing representation, which it is the province of the jury to determine.-Reg. vs. Welman, Dears. 188; 6 Cox, 153.

Inducing a person by a false pretence to accept a bill of exchange is notwithin this section.-Reg. vs. Danger, Dears. & B. 307. In such a case, the indictment should be under sect. 95, post.

A railway ticket obtained by false pretences is within the Statute, Reg. vs. Boulton, 1 Den. 508; Reg. vs. Beecham, 5 Cox, 181; and so is an order by the president of a burial society on a treasurer for the payment of money, Reg. vs. Greenhaigh, Dears. 267.

Where the defendant only obtains credit and not any specific sum by the false pretences, it is not within the Statute.-R. vs. Wavill, 1 Mood. 224; Reg. vs. Garrett, Dears. 233; Reg. vs. Crosby, 1 Cox, 10.

There must be an intent to defraud. Where C. B.'s servant obtained goods from A.'s wife by false pretence, in order to enable B. his master, to pay himself a debt due from A., of which he could not obtain payment from A., it was held that C. could not be convicted.-R. vs. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 554. But it shall not be necessary to allege nor to prove the intent to defraud any person in particular. With intent to defraud are the words of the Statute, sect. 93, ante.

But these words "with intent to defraud” are a material and necessary part of the indictment; their omission is fatal, and cannot be remedied by an amendment inserting them. By Lush, J., Reg. vs. James, 12 Cox, 127.

An indictment for false pretences charged that the defendant falsely pretended that he had a lot of trucks of coal at a railway station on demurrage, and that he required forty coal bags. The evidence was that defendant saw prosecutor and gave him his card, "J. W. and

Co., Timber and Coal Merchants," and said that he was largely in the coal and timber way, and inspected some coal bags, but objected to the price. The next day, he called again, showed prosecutor a lot of correspondence, and said that he had a lot of trucks of coal at the railway station under demurrage, and that he wanted some coal bags immediately. Prosecutor had only forty bags ready, and it was arranged that defendant was to have them, and pay for them in a week. They were delivered to defendant, and prosecutor said he let the defendant have the bags in consequence of his having the trucks of coal under demurrage, at the station; there was evidence as to the defendant having taken premises, and doing a small business in coal, but he had no trucks of coal on demurrage at the station. The jury convicted the prisoner, and on a case reserved, the judges held that the false pretence charged was not too remote to support the indictment, and that the evidence was sufficient to maintain it.-Reg. vs. Willot, 12 Cox, 68.

The prisoner induced the prosecutor to buy a chain by knowingly and falsely asserting, inter alia, "it is a 15carat fine gold, and you will see it stamped on every link." In point of fact, it was little more than 6-carat gold: held, upon a case reserved, that the above assertion was sufficient evidence of the false representation of a definite matter of fact to support a conviction for false pretences.-Reg. vs. Ardley, 12 Cox, 23. Reg. vs. Bryan, Dears. & B. 265, 7 Cox, 313, ante, was said by the judges not to be a different decision, but that there, there was no definite matter of fact falsely represented.

. On an indictment for inducing the prosecutor, by means of false pretences, to enter into an agreement to take a field for the purpose of brick making, in the belief that the soil of the field was fit to make bricks, whereas

it was not, he being himself a brickmaker, and having inspected the field and examined the soil: held that, nevertheless, if he had been induced to take the field by false and fraudulent representations by the defendant of the specific matters of fact relating to the quality and character of the soil, as, for instance, that he had himself made good bricks therefrom, the indictment would be sustained; held, also, that it would be sufficient, if he was partly and materially, though not entirely, influenced by the false pretences.-Reg. vs. English, 12 Cox,

171.

The prisoner was convicted on an indictment charging that he did falsely pretend that he then lived at, and was the landlord of a beerhouse, and thereby obtained goods. The evidence was, that prisoner said he was the nephew of a man in prosecutor's employ which was true; and that he lived at the beerhouse, but he did not say that he was the landlord of that house. Prosecutor, in parting with his goods, was influenced both by the fact of his being the nephew of his servant, and the statement that he lived at the beerhouse; he believed him to be the landlord of the beerhouse; held, that it was immaterial that the prosecutor was partly influenced by the fact that the prisoner was the nephew of his servant; held, also, that the allegation that the prisoner lived at and was the landlord of the beerhouse was divisible, and that the fact, "that he lived at the beerhouse," being false, he was rightly convicted.-Reg. vs. Lince, 12 Cox, 451.

If the possession only and not the property has been passed by the prosecutor, the offence is larceny and not false pretences.-Reg. vs. Radcliffe, 12 Cox, 474.

All persons who concur and assist in the fraud are principles, though not present at the time of making the pretence or obtaining the property.-Reg. vs. Mooland,