Thus, procuring a promissory note, by a promise to give the prosecutor $600 on what he would have out of the proceeds of the note, when discounted, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. (x)

And where D. was to pay for all goods supplied to the prisoner to the amount of a certain promissory note held by the prisoner against D., the amounts supplied to be endorsed on the note; and the prisoner obtained goods without producing the note, saying he would bring it down and have the amount endorsed in a day or two, but intending not to do so nor to pay for the goods. The prisoner having been found guilty, was held to have been improperly con-victed. (y)

But inducing a person to buy certain packages by representing that they contained good tea, when three-fourths of their contents were, to the prisoner's knowledge, not tea at all, but a mixture of substances unfit to drink, is a false representation of an existing fact. (2)

So the selling of a railway pass, good only to carry a particular person, and which the purchaser could not use except by committing a fraud upon the railway company, and at the risk of being at any moment expelled from the train, is a false pretence within the statute. (a)

So a false representation by a married man that he is single, thereby inducing a single woman to part with her money to him, for the purpose of furnishing a house, is a false pretence; and one false fact by which money is obtained is sufficient to support an indictment, although it may be united with false promises which would not of themselves do so. (b)

The giving a cheque does not amount to a representation that there is money of the drawer's at the bank indicated,

(z) Reg. v. Pickup, 10 L. C. J. 310.

(y) Reg v. Bertle, 13 U. C. C. P. 607.
(z) Reg. v. Foster, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 301.
(a) Reg. v. Abrahams, 24 L. C. J. 325.

(b) Reg. v. Jennison, 9 U. C. L. J. 83; 6 L. T. Reps. N. S. 256; 31 L. J. (M. C.) 146; Reg. v. Lee, 23 U. C. Q. B. 340, per Hagarty, J.

but it is a representation of authority to draw, or that it is a valid order for payment of the amount. (c)

The false representation by a person that he is in a large way of business, whereby he induces another to give him goods, is a false pretence. (d) So also is the obtaining a loan upon the security of a piece of land, by falsely and fraudulently representing that a house is built upon it. (e) And threatening to sue on a note which the prosecutor had made in favor of the prisoner, and which the prisoner had negotiated but pretended he was still the holder of, and thereby induced the prosecutor to pay, is a false pretence. (ƒ)

And under the more recent decisions, the execution of a contract, between the same parties, does not secure from punishment the obtaining of money under false pretences in conformity with that contract. (g)

Fraudulently misrepresenting the amount of a bank note, and thereby obtaining a larger sum than its value in change, is obtaining money by false pretences, although the person deceived has the means of detection at hand, and the note is a genuine bank note. (h)

And where a prisoner obtained money and goods, by pretending that a piece of paper was the bank note of an existing solvent firm, knowing that the bank had stopped payment forty years before, he was held guilty of false pretences. (¿) But the fact that a bank note was the note of a private bank, which had paid a dividend of 2s. 4d. on the pound, and no longer existed, and that a neighboring bank would not

(c) Reg. v. Hazleton, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 134.

(d) Reg. v. Cooper, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 510; Reg. v. Crab, 5 U. C. L. J.N. S. 21, per Kelly, C. B.; 11 Cox, 85.

(e) Reg. v. Burgon, 2 U. C. L. J. 138; Dears. & B. 11; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 105; Reg. v. Huppel, 21 U. C. Q. B. 281.

(f) Reg. v. Lee, 23 U. C. Q. B. 340.

(g) See Reg. v. Abbott, 1 Den. 173; 2 C. & K. 630; Reg. v. Boss, Bell, 208; 29 L. J. (M. C.) 86; Reg. v. Meakin, 11 Cox, 270; Arch. Cr. Pldg.

473.

(h) Reg. v. Jessop, 4 U.C.L.J. 167; Dears. & B. 442; 27 L. J. (M.C.) 70. (i) Reg. v. Dowey, 16 W. R. 344; 37 L. J. (M.C.) 52; and see Reg. v. Brady, 26 U. C. Q. B. 14.

change it, was held not sufficient from which to infer that the note was of no value whatever. (j)

Upon an indictment alleging that the prisoner obtained a coat, by falsely pretending that a bill of parcels of a coat of the value of 14s. 6d., of which 4s. 6d. had been paid on account, was a bill of parcels of another coat of the value of 228., which the prisoner had had made to measure, and that 10s. only were due, it was proved that the prisoner's wife had selected the 14s. 6d. coat for him, at the prosecutor's shop, subject to its fitting on his calling to try it on, and had paid 4s. 6d. on account, for which she received a bill of parcels giving credit for that amount. On the prisoner's calling to try on the coat, it was found to be too small, and he was then measured for one, which he ordered to be made, to cost 22s.; and on the day named for trying on that coat he called, and the coat was fitted on by the prosecutor, who had not been present on the former occasion; and the case stated that the prisoner, on the coat being given to him, handed 10s. and the bill of parcels for the 14s. 6d. coat, saying, "There is 10s. to pay," which bill the prosecutor handed to his daughter, to examine, and upon that the prisoner put the coat under his arm, and, after the bill of parcels referred to had been handed to him with a receipt, went away. The prosecutor stated that, believing the bill of parcels to be a genuine bill, and that it referred to the 22s. coat, he parted with that coat on payment of the 10s,, which otherwise he should not have done. It was held that there was evidence to go to the jury, and that the conviction was right. (k)

Where a prisoner, who had been discharged from A.'s service, went to the store of O. and S., and representing himself as still in the employ of A., who was a customer of O. and S., asked for goods in A.'s name, which were sent to A.'s house, where the prisoner preceded the goods, and, as soon as the clerk delivered the parcel, snatched it from him, saying, "This is for me; I am going in to see A.;" but instead of doing

(j) Reg. v. Evans, 6 U. C. L. J. 262; Bell, 187; 29 L. J. (M.C.) 20.
(k) Rey. v. Steels, 16 W. R. 341.

so, walked out of the house with the parcel. It was held that the prisoner was rightly convicted of having obtained the goods from O. and S. under false pretences. ()

The false pretence may be of a past or an existing fact. (m) It would seem that indefinite or exaggerated praise, upon a matter of indefinite opinion, cannot be made the ground of an indictment for false pretences. (n)

But where the prisoner induced the prosecutor to purchase a chain from him, by fraudulently representing to him that it was 15 carat gold, when, in fact, it was only of a quality a trifle better than 6 carat, knowing at the time that he was falsely representing the quality of the chain, it was held that the statement was not mere exaggerated praise, nor relating to a mere matter of opinion, but a statement as to a specific fact within the knowledge of the prisoner, and a false pretence. (0) It would seem, from this case, that a specific representation of quality, if known to be false, is within the statute. (p)

Not only is a false pretence of an existing fact necessary, but the prosecutor must have been induced to part with his property in consequence thereof; (g) and if the money is parted with from a desire to secure the conviction of the prisoner, there is no obtaining by false pretences. (r)

And where the defendant made false representations to the prosecutor, and thereby induced him to sell his horses to him, but the prosecutor afterwards, on learning the falsity of the representations, entered into a new agreement in writing

(1) Reg. v. Robinson, 9 L. C. R. 278.

(m) Reg. v. Gemmell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 314, per Hagarty, J.; Reg. v. Giles, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 643; 10 Cox, 44.

(n) Reg. v. Goss, Bell, 208; 29 L. J. (M.C.) 90, per Erle, C. J.; Reg. v. Bryan, Dears. & B. 265; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 84; see also Reg. v. Watson, Dears. & B. 348; 27 L. J. (M. C.) 18, per Erle, J.; Reg. v. Levine, 10 Cox, 374.

(0) Reg. v. Ardley, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 301.

(p) But see Reg. v. Eagleton, 1 U. C. L. J. 179; Dears. 515; 24 L. J. (M. C.) 158.

(q) Reg. v. Gemmell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 312.

(r) Reg. v. Mills, 29 L. T. Reps. 114; Dears. & B. 205 ; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 79; Reg. v. Gemmell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 315, per Hagarty, J.; see also Reg. v. Dale, 7 C. & P. 352; Reg. v. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 25; 25 L. J. (M. C.)

with the prisoner; it was held that the subsequent dealings repelled the idea that the prosecutor had parted with his property in consequence of the false pretence. (s)

The false pretence must be the proximate cause of the loss. Thus an indictment for obtaining from A. $1,200 by false pretences, was not supported by proof of obtaining A.'s promissory note for that sum, which A. afterwards paid before maturity, inasmuch as it was an engagement or promise to pay at a future date, and, though remotely, the payment arose from the false pretence; yet immediately and directly it was made, because the prosecutor desired to retire his note, and did so before it became due, and though the false pretences on which the note was obtained might be said to be continuing, they were not, according to the evidence, made or renewed when the note was paid. (t)

And where a person, by falsely representing himself to be another person, induced another to enter into a contract with him for board and lodging, and was supplied accordingly with various articles of food: it was held that the obtaining of the goods was too remotely connected with the false representation to support a conviction. (u)

But a conviction for obtaining a chattel by false pretences is good, although the chattel is not in existence at the time the pretence is made, provided the subsequent delivery of the chattel is directly connected with the false pretence. (v) The test is the continuance of the pretence down to the time of delivery, and the direct connection between the pretence and delivery. (w)

It is essential that there should be an intention to deprive the owner wholly of the property in the chattel, and an obtaining by false pretences the use of a chattel for a limited time only, without an intention to deprive the owner wholly

(8) Reg. v. Connor, 14 U. C. C. P. 529.

(t) Reg. v. Brady, 26 U. C. Q. B. 13.

(u) Reg. v. Gardner, 2 U. C. L. J. 139; Dears. & B. 40; 25 L. J. (M.C.) 100; see, however, comments on this case in Reg. v. Martin, L.R. 1 C.C.R. 56, infra.

(v) Reg. v. Martin, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 56; 36 L. J. (M. C.) 20.

(w) Ibid. 60, per Bovill, C. J.