fact, however, that goods are obtained under contract by means of false pretenses does not necessarily render the pretense too remote. The statute applies, for instance, when a man fraudulently induces another by false pretenses to sell and deliver goods on credit. The fact that there is a contract does not render pretenses too remote.473

(c) Other Inducements Contributing.-By the overwhelming weight of authority it is not at all necessary that the false pretense shall be the sole inducement for parting with the property, or even that it shall be the main inducement. If it is relied upon, and is one of the inducements, an indictment will

by a false pretense. The obtaining of the board, it was held, was too remotely connected with the pretense. Reg. v. Gardner, Dears. & B. C. C. 40, 7 Cox, C. C. 136, Mikell's Cas. 870. See, also, Reg. v. Bryan, 2 Fost. & F. 567.

In an English case, the prisoner was charged with obtaining a prize in a certain swimming race by false pretenses. He obtained his competitor's ticket for the race by representing himself to be a member of a certain club, and by a letter purporting to be written by the secretary of that club. On the faith of these representations, which turned out to be false, he was allowed twenty seconds' start in the race, and won the prize. It was held that the false pretenses were too remote, and that the count charging them could not be sustained. Reg. v. Larner, 14 Cox, C. C. 497. But see Reg. v. Button [1900] 2 Q. B. 597, Mikell's Cas. 873, where the opposite result was reached on similar facts.

473 Reg. v. Abbott, 1 Den. C. C. 273, 2 Car. & K. 630, 2 Cox, C. C. 430; Reg. v. Dark, 1 Den. C. C. 276; Reg. v. Willot, 12 Cox, C. C. 68; Com. v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179, 21 N. E. 299; People v. Martin, 102 Cal. 558, 36 Pac. 952; Wilkerson v. State, 140 Ala. 155, 36 So. 1004. And see Smith v. State, 55 Miss. 521.

On this point, see Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, art. 331, and the illustrations there given.

If there is any distinction between obtaining goods by a false pretense directly made, and obtaining goods at several times under a contract into which the seller has been entrapped by a false pretense, it has no force in a case where, the goods being obtained at different times, the accused at each time repeated the false pretense. In such a case, the sale of the goods will be referred to the false pretense thus repeated, rather than to the contract. Smith v. State, 55 Miss. 513.

And

lie, however many other inducements may contribute.474 it can make no difference that the property would not have been parted with except for the other inducements.475

One who according to an established custom obtains public money on the false pretense of rendering certain public services can take no benefit from the fact that there is no law authorizing payment for such services. 475a

(d) Lapse of Time-Continuing Pretense.-An indictment will lie for obtaining property by a false pretense, notwithstanding the lapse of time between the making of the pretense and the obtaining of the money, if the pretense is relied upon and intended to be relied upon, for it may be considered as continuing. 476 The lapse of time, however, may be considered in determining whether the pretense was in fact relied upon.477

474 Reg. v. Jennison, Leigh & C. 157, 9 Cox, C. C. 158, Beale's Cas. 742; Reg. v. English, 12 Cox, C. C. 171, Mikell's Cas. 868; Fay v. Com., 28 Grat. (Va.) 912; Com. v. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 179, Beale's Cas. 744; Com. v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179; Woodbury v. State, 69 Ala. 242, 44 Am. Rep. 515; In re Snyder, 17 Kan. 554; Jules v. State, 85 Md. 305, 36 Atl. 305; State v. Thatcher, 35 N. J. Law, 445; People v. Miller, 2 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 199; People v. Oyer & Terminer Court, 83 N. Y. 453; State v. Conner, 110 Ind. 471, 11 N. E. 454; State v. Knowlton, 11 Wash. 512, 39 Pac. 966; State v. Carter, 112 Iowa, 15, 83 N. W. 715; Braxton v. State, 117 Ga. 703, 45 S. E. 64; Holton v. State, 109 Ga. 127, 34 S. E. 358. See ante, § 359d.

"It is sufficient if the jury are satisfied that the unlawful purpose would not have been effected without the influence of the false pretense, added to any other circumstances which might have contributed to control the will of the injured party." State v. Thatcher, supra. 475 Com. v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179; People v. Weir, 120 Cal. 279, 52 Pac. 656.

475a Berreyesa v. Ter. (Ariz.) 76 Pac. 472.

476 Reg. v. Greathead, 38 Law Times (N. S.) 691, 14 Cox, C. C. 108; Reg. v. Welman, Dears. C. C. 188. And see State v. House, 55 Iowa, 473, 8 N. W. 307; Com. v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179, 21 N. E. 299.

In an English case, the prisoner, by means of a false wages sheet, obtained from his master a check for the amount stated in the sheet to pay the men's wages. The check was informally drawn, and refused payment by the bank. The prisoner returned it to his master, telling him of the cause of its nonpayment, and the master tore it up. and gave another. This the prisoner cashed, and he appropriated the

366. Negligence of the Person Defrauded.

It has been held in some cases that negligence of the person defrauded in relying upon the false pretense may prevent the obtaining of the property from him from being indictable, as where he has equal means of knowing or ascertaining the truth.478 But the soundness of this view is very doubtful. One who perpetrates a fraud upon another by a representation which he knows to be false should not be allowed to say, either in a civil or a criminal case, that the other was guilty of negligence in believing him; and there are a number of cases in which this view has been taken.479

difference between what was really due for wages and what was falsely stated to be due. On an indictment charging him with obtaining money by false pretenses, it was objected that this evidence did not prove the charge, as he had only obtained a valueless piece of paper. It was held, however, that the false pretense was a continuing one, and that the second valuable check was obtained thereby equally with the first, and that the charge was proved. Reg. v. Greathead, supra.

477 See Reg. v. Gardner, Dears. & B. C. C. 40, 7 Cox, C. C. 136.

478 Com. v. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 179, Beale's Cas. 744; Com. v. Norton, 11 Allen (Mass.) 266, Beale's Cas. 750; Com. v. Grady, 13 Bush (Ky.) 285, 26 Am. Rep. 192; Woodbury v. State, 69 Ala. 242, 44 Am. Rep. 515; Buckalew v. State, 11 Tex. App. 352.

479 See Reg. v. Woolley, 3 Car. & K. 98, 1 Den. C. C. 559, 4 Cox, C. C. 193; Reg. v. Jessop, Dears. & B. C. C. 442, 7.Cox, C. C. 399; State v. Knowlton, 11 Wash. 512, 39 Pac. 966; Crawford v. State, 117 Ga. 247, 43 S. E. 762; Com. v. Mulrey, 170 Mass. 103; Thomas v. People, 113 Ill. 537.

In Reg. v. Woolley, supra, the secretary of an Odd Fellows' lodge told a member that he owed a certain sum, and thereby obtained that sum from him, whereas he owed a less sum. It was held that this was a false pretense, within the statute, though the truth might easily have been ascertained by inquiry.

And in Reg. v. Jessop, supra, a person who fraudulently offered a £1 bank note as a note for £5, and obtained change as for a £5 note, was held guilty of obtaining money by false pretenses, though the other person could read, and the note itself, upon the face of it, clearly afforded the means of detecting the fraud.

367. The Obtaining of the Property.

(a) In General.-To constitute the offense of obtaining property by a false pretense, the property must be actually obtained.480 Otherwise, it is at the most an attempt only. But where the owner actually parts with his property, it is immaterial that the title passes not to defendant, but to a corporation of which he is an officer.480a

(b) The Property, and not Merely the Possession, must be Obtained. It was shown in a preceding section that, to constitute an obtaining of property by false pretenses, it is essential that there shall be an intention to deprive the owner wholly of his property in the chattel, and the offense is not committed where the intent is merely to obtain the temporary possession and use. 481

It is also necessary that the owner shall intend to part with the property in the chattel. The statute does not apply where a person, by means of false and fraudulent representations, obtains the mere possession of another's property for a temporary purpose, though he may intend at the time to appropriate the property to his own use.482 In such a case he is guilty of larceny.483 The statutes do not apply, for instance, where a person merely hires or borrows property, using false pretenses to obtain possession, though he may intend to appropriate the same to his own use and deprive the owner permanently of his prop

480 Rex v. Buttery, cited 5 Dowl. & R. 619, 3 Barn. & C. 700; Jamison v. State, 37 Ark. 445, 40 Am. Rep. 103; Ex parte Parker, 11 Neb. 313, 9 N. W. 33.

480a Com. v. Langley, 169 Mass. 89, 47 N. E. 511.

481 Ante, § 364c.

482 Reg. v. Kilham, L. R. 1 C. C. 261, 11 Cox, C. C. 561, Beale's Cas. 718; Reg. v. Prince, L. R. 1 C. C. 150; Canter v. State, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 349, Mikell's Cas. 849; Smith v. People, 53 N. Y. 111, 13 Am. Rep. 474; Loomis v. People, 67 N. Y. 322, 23 Am. Rep. 123; Grunson v. State, 83 Ind. 533, 46 Am. Rep. 178; Welsh v. People, 17 Ill. 339; Miller v. Com., 78 Ky. 15, 39 Am. Rep. 194; State v. Kube, 20 Wis. 217, 91 Am. Dec. 390; State v. Buck (Mo.) 84 S. W. 951. See, also, Rex v. Hammon, 2 Leach, C. C. 1083, Russ. & R. 221, 4 Taunt. 304.

483 Ante, § 316c.

erty therein. 484 The intention of the owner, therefore, as well as the intention of the accused, is to be considered. If the owner intends to part with the property, and not merely with the possession, the offense is the obtaining of property by false pretenses, and not larceny.485

In some states, by express statutory provision, a defendant indicted for false pretenses may be convicted notwithstanding the evidence may show that the offense was larceny.

368. Necessity for Injury.

(a) In General.-It is necessary, in order that a case may come within the statutes against obtaining property by false pretenses, that the person from whom it is obtained shall be defrauded. If he sustains no injury, the offense is not committed.486 It is not obtaining property by false pretenses, within the meaning of the statutes, to induce another to pay a debt which is justly due from him, or to do any other act which he is legally bound to do, though he is induced to do so by false pretenses. 487 "A false representation by which a man may be cheated into his duty is not within the statute."488

484 See the cases above cited.

485 Rex v. Adams, Russ. & R. 225, Beale's Cas. 720; Reg. v. Thompson, Leigh & C. 233, 9 Cox, C. C. 222; People v. Johnson, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 292; Zink v. People, 77 N. Y. 114, 33 Am. Rep. 589; State v. Kube, 20 Wis. 217, 91 Am. Dec. 390.

486 People v. Thomas, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 169, Beale's Cas. 722; State v. Asher, 50 Ark. 427, 8 S. W. 177; People v. Jordan, 66 Cal. 10, 4 Pac. 773, 56 Am. Rep. 73; State v. Palmer, 50 Kan. 318, 32 Pac. 29; State v. Clark, 46 Kan. 65, 26 Pac. 481.

In State v. Palmer, supra, it was said: "The mere obtaining of money under false pretenses does not alone constitute a crime. The money must be obtained to the injury of some one. Though money is obtained by misrepresentation, if no injury follows, no crime is accomplished. * A person must be charged with and convicted of some specific offense, if convicted at all. It will not do to convict on general principles, because the evidence shows the defendant devoid of common honesty."

487 Rex v. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 354, Mikell's Cas. 879; People v. Thomas, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 169, Beale's Cas. 169; Com. v. McDuffy, 126