On the other hand, proof that defendant, by false pretenses, obtained the satisfaction of his debt to another, no money passing, is not sufficient to sustain an indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses.' And one who by false and fraudulent representations obtains from another a sum of money which is no more than is rightfully due him from the latter, cannot be convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses; and evidence of the amount of the debt due to him is admissible on the trial. So, obtaining a receipt in discharge of a debt which was paid with the worthless note of a broken bank, is not the obtaining money, or other valuable thing, by false tokens or false pretenses;' and no indictment will lie where one obtained a release of a judgment, falsely pretending he had ability to discharge it.*

§ 414. False pretense to bailee or agent.-A false pretense to an agent who communicates it to his principal, who is induced by it to act in the matter, is a false pretense to the principal. And the same is true as to obtaining money by false pretenses, from an agent who pays it by direction of his principal. False representations made to an agent, if he has authority to sell the articles obtained by such false pretense, will be sufficient to maintain an information, although the principal did not act upon the representations made otherwise than through the agent. Thus, an indictment charging the obtaining of money from the board of chosen free-holders by certain false pretenses made to the county collector, is suffi

procures a loan by falsely pretending that he is procuring it to pay a certain debt. It is enough if there are false statements of existing facts.— State v. Cowdin, 28 Kan. 269. Where a banker, after collecting money for a customer, induces the customer, while it is still in his possession, to loan it to the bank, by falsely pretending that the bank is solvent, when he knows or has reason to believe that it is not.-Com. v. Schwartz, (Ky.) 18 S. W. Rep. 775.

1 Jamison v. State, 37 Ark. 445; 40 Am. Rep. 103.

* Com. v. McDuffy, 126 Mass. 467; People v. Thomas, 3 Hill 169; State v. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54.

8 Moore v. Com. 8 Pa. St. 260.

* People v. Babcock, 7 Johns. 201; 5 Am. Dec. 256.

Com. v. Call, 21 Pick. 59.

People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297.

cient; it is not necessary that the pretenses be made to the person from whom the money was obtained, the money of the principal being had by means of false pretenses made to the agent. The defendant may be convicted, although the money obtained belonged to another, and was in the custody of the prosecutor as bailee."

CHAPTER XLVI.

JURISDICTION; VENUE; ARREST.

§ 415. Jurisdiction.

416. Venue.

417. Affidavit for warrant.

§ 415. Jurisdiction.-In California, the police judge's court has no jurisdiction of the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses, as the fine may exceed $1,000. In Indiana, a person is not liable to conviction and punishment for obtaining property by a false pretense, where the property has been obtained outside of the State, though the false pretense may have been made within the State. In Iowa, an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses is not invalid because of the fact that they were made by defendant in another county, if the property was delivered to him in the county where the indictment was found. In Kentucky, the obtaining of money constitutes the substance of the offense. Where, therefore, the fraud is concocted and the representations are made in one State, but the scheme is consummated and the money paid in another, the crime is committed in the latter

1 State v. Crowley, 39 N. J. L. 265.

2 Britt v. State, 9 Humph. 31.

3 In re Neustadt, 82 Cal. 273.

4 Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 413.

State v. House, 55 Iowa 466.

State, and the perpetrator is properly indictable there.' In Massachusetts, the liability of a party to be punished under the United States bankrupt act for obtaining goods on credit, with intent to defraud, within three months before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, does not take away the jurisdiction of the State courts under an indictment for conspiring to obtain the goods by false pretenses.' The offense of obtaining money by false pretenses is complete in Massachusetts if the pretenses are there made and everything is done there except that the person defrauded, instead of paying over the money there, sends it to defendant at New York by cashier's draft.' In New York, on trial for false pretenses, doubts as to jurisdiction may be solved in favor of the court, unless by so doing some established rule of law will be violated. In Ohio, where one by false pretenses contained in a letter sent by mail, procured the owner of goods to deliver them to a common carrier in one county consigned to the writer in another county, the offense was complete in the former county and must be prosecuted therein."

§ 416. Venue. It is where the property is obtained, not where the pretenses were made, that fixes the venue of the indictment. Thus, where A. bought mules in R., and gave a draft on B. in the city of S. for them, falsely representing that there was money there to meet the draft, and the mules were sent to S., where A. went with them, and sold them, and ran away with the money-the venue of the offense of obtain

1 Com. v. Van Tuyl, 1 Met. (Ky.) 1; 71 Am. Dec. 455.

* Com. v. Walker, 108 Mass. 309. S. P., in New York, Abbott v. People, 15 Hun 437.

3 Com. v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459.

Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330.

'Norris v. State, 25 Ohio St. 217. S. P., in Massachusetts, Com. v. Taylor, 105 Mass. 172. A letter containing false pretenses was written in England and received in France. In consequence of it the receiver drew a check in France and sent it to the writer, who cashed it in England. Held, the prisoner was properly indicted and tried in England.-Reg. v. Holmes, L. R., 12 Q. B. D. 23; 49 L. T. 540.

6 State v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271; State v. House, 55 Iowa 466; Sims v. State, 28 Tex. App. 447.

ing the mules by false pretenses was properly laid in R., A. there becoming invested with the property'

417. Affidavit for warrant.—An affidavit for the arrest of a person for fraudulently obtaining goods, must set out all the facts, and they must be averred positively. And where any of the facts relied upon are derived from information, they may be so stated; but the sources and nature of the information must be stated, and good reasons given for not making a positive statement.'

CHAPTER XLVII.

INDICTMENT.

§ 418. Sufficiency, generally. 419. Setting out the pretense.

420. Negativing the pretense.

421. Averment that pretense was successful.

422. Averment of intent, or scienter.

423. Description of the property.

424. Averment of ownership.

425. Averment of value.

426. Joinder of counts.

427. Instances of insufficient indictments.

§ 418. Sufficiency, generally.—(a) Charging the offense, generally.-In Indiana, an indictment, charging the obtaining

1 State v. Dennis, 80 Mo. 589. A. was indicted in New York for obtaining money from commission merchants in that city, by showing them a fictitious receipt, signed by a forwarder in Ohio, falsely acknowledging the delivery to him of a quantity of produce for the use of and subject to the order of the firm. The defendant set up in defense, that he was a citizen of Ohio, had always lived there, and had never been in the State of New York; that the receipt was drawn and signed in Ohio, and the offense was committed by the receipt being presented to the firm in New York by an innocent agent of the defendant. Held, that the defendant was properly indicted in New York.-Adams v. People, 1 Comst. 173.

2 Whitlock v. Roth, 10 Barb. 78.

of property under false pretenses, must specify the pretenses, the goods obtained, and from whom, negative the pretenses, aver that the defendant knew them to be false, and show the connection between them and the fraud accomplished by their means.' In Kansas, an indictment which fully sets out the method by which the alleged fraud was committed, the value of the property obtained, and alleges the fraudulent intent, states an offense.' In Massachusetts, an indictment which alleges that defendant obtained goods by falsely representing that he was the owner of certain property, and giving a mortgage thereon, is sufficient, as the false representations were the direct, and not the remote, means by which defendant obtained the goods, even though they would not have been delivered to him but for the mortgage.' In Minnesota, in an indictment for obtaining a signature to a deed through false pretenses, an averment that the deed was "executed" includes everything necessary to its full execution." In Missouri, the

prisoner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is sufficiently assured to him if the indictment preserves the substance of the offense. It is not necessary that it should descend to a minute detail of the facts and circumstances constituting the offense. In New York, in an indictment under the statute for obtaining a signature to a written instrument under false pretenses, it is not essential to set forth all the details of the fraud; it is sufficient to specify particularly the pretenses, to aver their falsity and the fraudulent intent, and to show how they were effectual in accomplishing the fraud. In North Carolina, where all the elements necessary to constitute the crime of "false pretense" are charged in the indictment, it is sufficient." An averment that the defendant did unlawfully, etc., and intending to cheat and defraud, falsely pretend that a certain mare which

1 Johnson v. State, 75 Ind. 553.

2 State v. Palmer, 40 Kan. 474.

Com. v. Lee, 149 Mass. 179.

* State v. Butler, 50 N. W. Rep. 532.

5 State v. Fancher, 71 Mo., 460.

6 People v. Oyer and Terminer Court, 80 N. Y. 436.

State v. Dickson, 88 N. C. 643.