property, by a false statement of any other alleged existing fact:-Where a man, who was a member of a benefit society, falsely represented to the clerk of the society, in the presence of C. D., one of the stewards, that his wife was dead, and thereby obtained from the steward five pound out of the society's box: this was holden to be a false pretence within the statute, and being made in C. D.'s presence, it might be alleged to be made to him, and the money to be the property of C. D. and others. R. v. Dent, 1 Car. & K. 249. Where the prisoner, in selling cheeses to the prosecutor, pretended to take a sample, or taster as it is termed, from the cheese by a scoop, and the prosecutor approving of it purchased the cheese; in fact the taster had not been taken from that cheese, but was previously at the end of the scoop, and had been taken from a cheese of a much superior quality: the defendant was convicted, and the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Abbott, 2 Car. & K. 630. S. P. R. v. Dark, R. v. Garlick, Id. 632. Where a carrier employed by C. D. to carry goods from K. and to deliver them to one Leach, at L., afterwards, by falsely pretending to C. D. that he had carried and delivered them, obtained from him sixteen shillings for the carriage being indicted for obtaining this money by false pretences, and convicted, the judgment was affirmed on error. R.v. Airey, 2 East, 30. Where a porter, who had to deliver a parcel to the Countess of Ilchester, was authorized by his ticket to receive six shillings and sixpence for carriage and porterage, but changed the figures into nine shillings and ten pence, and demanded that sum from the countess's servant, who paid him, and was allowed the payment in account by his mistress: the prisoner being indicted for this, as obtaining three shillings and four pence under false pretences, it was objected that there was another statute, by which such an offence in a porter was punishable by penalty upon summary conviction; but Ld. Ellenborough, C. J., held that statute to be cumulative merely, and that it did not take away the previous remedy by indictment: it was then objected that the money at the time it was obtained, was the money of the servant, not of the countess; but it appearing that the servant had at the time more than that amount of the countess's money in his possession, Ld. Ellenborough held that to be sufficient. R. v. Douglas, 1 Camp. 212. Where the secretary of a society of odd-fellows told the prosecutor, who was a member, that he owed the society thirteen shillings and nine pence, and he produced and served a paper purporting to be a summons, signed by himself, giving him notice to that effect, and the prosecutor paid him; but there was in fact only two shillings and two pence then due: he was convicted for obtaining the surplus by a false pretence, and the court of criminal appeal held the conviction to be right, Ld. Campbell saying that even if a tradesman

demanded of a customer five pounds as due to him, and obtained it, where in fact nothing was due to him, he might be indicted for obtaining it by false pretences. R. v. Woolley, 19 Law J. 165 m. Where the defendant, an attorney, having attended for the prosecutor before the magistrates on an information, when he was fined two pounds, came afterwards to the prosecutor's wife, falsely stated to her that he had been to the magistrates from another person who had been similarly fined, and he got the fine reduced to one pound, and if she would give him a sovereign he would get the same done for her husband; but this turned out to be a falsehood, and no application being made by the defendant, the prosecutor was obliged to pay the full penalty: this was holden clearly to be a false pretence within the Act. R. v. Asterley, 7 Car. & P. 191. Where the prisoner, by a false statement in a begging letter, obtained a sum of money from a gentleman as a charitable gift, it was holden by the criminal appeal court to be an obtaining of money by false pretences within the Act. R. v. Jones, 19 Law J. 162 m. So, a false pretence by the prisoners that one of them had made a bet of five hundred guineas with a person, whereby they obtained from the prosecutor twenty guineas as a contribution towards the stakes, was in the case of Young and others, ante, p. 465, holden to be a false pretence within the Act. Where the prisoner falsely pretended to the prosecutor that he was entrusted by the Duke of Lauzun to bring horses from Ireland, but being delayed by contrary winds, his money was all spent ; and the prosecutor was thereby induced to advance him a sum of money: this was holden to be a false pretence within a former statute upon the subject. Villeneuve's case, cit. 3 T. R. 104, 105. So, where the prisoner falsely pretended to the prosecutor that he had obtained from Lord Stanley the appointment of emigration agent at Port Phillip, and offered for 2007. to give him a third of it, and the prosecutor was accordingly induced to give him the 2007.: a deed was then drawn up by the defendant's directions as for a partnership generally, without mention of the agency: being indicted for this, as for obtaining money by false pretences, it was objected for the prisoner that as the prosecutor had put in the deed as evidence, the parol evidence should be rejected, and the defendant acquitted: but the case went to the jury, who found the prisoner guilty; and the objection being reserved for the opinion of the judges, they held the conviction right. R. v. Adamson, 1 Car. & K. 192. So, where the prisoner was the acceptor of a bill for 2,6381. drawn by the prosecutor for value, and upon its becoming due, the prisoner falsely pretended to the prosecutor that he had the amount except 3007., and thereby induced the prosecutor to advance him the 3007.: Patteson, J., held that if the prisoner did this for the purpose of getting the 3007.

and applying it to his own use, and not to the payment of the bill, it was a false pretence within the meaning of the Act; and the prisoner was convicted. R. v. Crossley, 2 Mo. & R. 17. But where the prisoner sold to the prosecutor a reversionary interest he had in some money left by his grandfather, and the prosecutor took a regular assignment of it, with the usual covenant for title; and it appeared that he had previously sold the same interest to another: being indicted for this, as for obtaining money by false pretences, Littledale, J., held that he could not be convicted, and that the prosecutor's only remedy was by civil action on the covenant; if this were an offence within the Act, every breach of warranty, or false assertion at the time of making a bargain, might be treated as such, and the party be transported. R. v. Codrington, 1 Car. & P. 661. Nor can a man be indicted for obtaining money by false pretences, by selling a horse with a false warranty of soundness, however fraudulent the case may be. R. v. Pywell, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 402.

Care must be taken that there be no material variance between the pretence stated and that proved; if there be any doubt upon the subject, the offence should be stated differently in different counts, to correspond with the proof. Where the false pretence stated was a paper, which according to the indictment purported to be an order for the payment of 1002, and the order when produced appeared not to be directed to any person the judges held that as the paper did not purport to be an order for the payment of money, as stated in the indictment, the prisoner ought not to be convicted. R. v. Cartwright, R. & Ry. 106. So in all other cases, a variance in any material part between the statement of the pretence and the proof, will be fatal, unless in cases where the indictment may be amended as mentioned, ante, p. 100. It is not necessary however that the whole of the pretence should be proved; proof of part of the pretence, and that the money, &c., was obtained by such part, is sufficient. R. v. Hill, R. & Ry. 190. So, if the part in which the variance occurs may be rejected as surplusage, the variance shall not hurt: as for instance, where an indictment for an attempt to obtain money by false pretences, alleged the pretence to have been made to J. B. and others, with intent to defraud the said J. B. and others, and the evidence was that the false pretence was made to J. B. alone, although the intent was to defraud J. B. and his partners: the defendant being convicted, and the point being reserved for the opinion of the criminal appeal court, the judges there held that in the statement of the pretence as being made to J. B. and others, the words " and others" might be rejected as surplusage. R. v. Kealey, 20 Law J. 57 m. If the false pretence be in writing, and the writing be lost before the trial, the prosecutor will be allowed to give secondary evidence of it. R. v. Chadwick, 6 Car. & P. 181.

2. That the prisoner obtained the money, &c., by means of the false pretence. Where the prisoner, by lodging with his banker in the country a bill drawn upon a person in London, which he represented as good and would be accepted (but which in fact never was accepted afterwards), was allowed by his banker to draw cheques in favour of other persons, but he never in fact received any money himself upon the bill so lodged by him: the judges held that this was not an offence within the meaning of the statute. R. v. Wavell, Ry. & M. 224. And it must appear, by evidence, that the prosecutor parted with his property, by reason of the false pretence alleged, R. v. Dale, 7 Car. & P. 352,and of that alone. R. v. Wickham, 10 Ad. & El. 34. And, as has been already mentioned (ante, p. 467), it must appear that he parted with the right of property in the thing obtained, not merely with the possession. See R. v. Barnes, 20 Law J. 34 m. The thing obtained may be "any chattel, money, or valuable security." 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 53. And a railway ticket has been holden to be a chattel, within the Act. R. v. Boulton, 2 Car. & K. 917. If the indictment state an obtaining of "money," "the allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, shall be sustained by proof of any amount of coin or of any bank-note, although the particular species of coin of which such amount was composed, or the particular nature of the bank-note, shall not be proved,"-" and by proof that the offender obtained any piece of coin or any bank-note, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or bank-note may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same or to any person, and such part shall have been returned accordingly." 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, ante, p. 90. If a valuable security have been obtained, and it were such as by law to require a stamp,-as a bill of exchange or promissory note, or a cheque not drawn payable to order or bearer, R. v. Yates, Ry. & M. 170, or issued at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the bankers, see R. v. Perry, 1 Car. & K. 725, ante, p. 393,-it must appear to have been stamped, for otherwise it would not be a valuable security within the meaning of the Act. If the prosecutor should fail in proving that the defendant obtained the money by the false pretence, the defendant may still be convicted of an attempt to commit the offence. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 9, ante, p. 124.

3. The intent to defraud. This is a most essential part of the offence, and must be proved, R. v. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 354, if it do not appear sufficiently from the other facts of the case. Formerly it was necessary to state in the indictment that the offence was committed with intent to defraud some particular person. This was in some cases difficult, as the false pretence might be made to one person, and the property

belong to another. But now by stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 8, it is sufficient to allege that the money was obtained " with intent to defraud," without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person; and the evidence may be accordingly. Where the prisoner, a parish pauper, being urged by the overseer to go to work, excused himself by saying that he had no shoes, and the overseer therefore gave him a pair; it appeared however clearly to have been a false pretence, for he had at the time two pair of shoes which he had obtained of the parish but because the pretence was evidently an excuse for not working, and not with intent to defraud the overseers of the shoes, the judges held it not to be an offence within the Act. R. v. Wakeling, R. & Ry. 504 Where a foreman returned an account of the wages of the workmen to his master, as amounting to a particular sum, and obtained a cheque from his master, for that amount, for which he got cash, and paid the workmen; in fact the wages amounted to seven shillings less than the account returned by the foreman, which sum the foreman applied to his own use: being indicted for obtaining the cheques by false pretences, with intent to defraud his master" of the same," it was objected that the intent proved was, not to defraud the master of the cheque, but merely of a small portion of the produce of it; but the judges held that the indictment was supported by the evidence. R. v. Leonard, 2 Car. & K. 514. See also R. v. Witchell, 2 East, P. C. 830.

4. That the pretence was false. And it must appear either from the facts of the case, or from other facts proved from which the jury may imply it, that the pretence was false to the knowledge of the prisoner. R. v. Henderson et al., Car. & M. 328. R. v. Philpotts, 1 Car. & K. 112. Per Ld. Denman, C. J. in R. v. Bowen, 19 Law J. 65 m.

Verdict, &c.] Upon an indictment for obtaining goods, &c., by false pretences, the jury may find the prisoner guilty, although the offence upon the evidence turn out to be larceny. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 53, ante, p. 174.

As to costs, see ante, p. 187. As to the restitution of property, at the trial, see ante, p. 192.

Attempt to obtain Goods, &c., by false Pretences.

This is a misdemeanor at common law. The indictment may be in the same form as for obtaining money under false pretences (see ante, p. 463), except, that instead of saying, "by means of which said false pretence the said A. B. then unlawfully did obtain," &c., you say, "by means of which said false pretence the said A. B. did then unlawfully attempt and endeavour to obtain," &c. See R. v. Marsh, 19 Law J. 12 m.