or where A, the accused, falsely represents that he is connected with B., a person of known opulence, and on the faith of such representation obtains for himself property (1); or where C., by fraudulently pretending that a genuine £1 Irish bank-note is a £5 note, obtains from D. the full value of a £5 note in change (2); or where E. with intention to defraud pays for goods by a cheque, stating that he wishes to pay ready money for them, but knowing at the time that he has only a nominal balance at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, that he has no power to overdraw his account, and not intending to pay money in to meet the cheque. (3)

There must be a knowingly false statement of a supposed by-gone or existing fact made with intent to defraud, and an obtaining of the money by means of that representation (4). A mere representation as to some future fact or a false promise by the party charged, that he will do or means to do a particular act, will not suffice to constitute a false pretence; (5) unless it be conjoined with a false pretence as to an existing fact. (6)

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a mere breach of warranty or a false representation, for instance, as to the profits of a business and the statutory offence of obtaining or attempting to obtain money by false pretences. It was held in the case of Reg. v. Bryan that if goods of a certain kind be sold under a misrepresentation knowingly made as to their value,-though not of a definite fact, the statutable offence of obtaining money by false pretences will not have been committed. 44 The legislature," observed Lord Campbell, C. J., "could not have intended to make it an indictable offence for a seller to exaggerate the quality of the goods he is selling, any more than to make criminal the act of a purchaser who strives during the bargain to depreciate their quality, and so induces the seller to part with the goods at a lower price." (7) And Coleridge, J., expressed himself similarly. It is," he said, "a safe rule, that where the false representation applies merely to the quality, and is in the nature of exaggeration on the one hand, or depreciation on the other, which may take place between parties even in tolerably honest transactions, the statute does not apply."

64

Where a manufacturer's foreman who was in the habit of receiving, from his master, money to pay the workmen, obtained from him,-by means of false written accounts of the men's earnings,-more than the men had really earned and more than he paid them, the judges held this to be within the statute; they said that all cases where the false pretence creates the credit are within the act; and here the defendant would not have obtained the excess over what was really due to the workmen were it not for the false pretence made by the false account delivered by him to the master. (8)

It was A.'s duty to ascertain daily the amount of dock dues payable by B., his master, and to apply to C., his masters' cashier for the amount and then pay it in discharge of the dues. On one occasion by falsely and knowingly repre senting to C. that the amount was larger than it really was, A. obtained from C. this larger amount, and then paid the real amount due appropriating the difference to his own use. Held, not larceny, but obtaining money by false pretences. (9)

A. obtained goods by falsely stating that he wanted them for B. who was a

(1) Reg. v. Archer, Dearsl. 449.

(2) Reg. v. Jessop, Dearsl. & B., 442. See also Reg. v. Evans, Bell C. C. 187. (3) Reg. v. Hazelton, L. R. 2 C. C. 134.

(4) Reg. v. Welman, Dears. 198; Reg. v. Hewgill, Dears. 315; Reg. v. Bulmer,

L. & C. 476; Reg. v. Giles. L. & C. 502.

(5) Reg. v. Johnson, 2 Moo. C. C. 254.

(6) Reg. v. Jennison, L. & C. 157.

(7) R. v. Bryan, Dears. & B. 265.

(8) R. v. Witchell, 2 East, P. C. 830.

(9) R. v. Thompson, L. & C. 233; 32 L. J. (M. C.) 57.

person whom he would trust with £1000, and who went out to New Orleans twice a year to take goods to his sons. Held, a sufficient false pretence. (1)

Obtaining as a loan,-from the drawer of a bill accepted by the prisoner and negociated by the drawer,-part of the amount, for the purpose of paying the bill under the false pretence that the prisoner was ready with the remainder of the amount, was held to be an offence within the statute, the prisoner being shewn not to be prepared with the remainder of the amount of the bill and not intending to so apply the money obtained from the drawer. (2)

Where A. obtained goods from B. by a false statement that a bill,-drawn on and accepted by himself, and purporting to be payable at the London and Westminster Bank, which bill he gave to B. for the price of the goods-would be paid at the bank the next day, and that he had made arrangements for it, this was held to be a sufficient false pretence. (3)

A. the secretary of an Odd Fellows' Lodge told B., a member that he owed the lodge 13 s 6 d., and thereby obtained that sum from him fraudulently, whereas B. owed 2 s. 2 d. only. Held, rightly convicted of obtaining money by false pretences. (4)

A creditor who wilfully and fraudulently represents to a third person, who holds money of his debtor, that a larger sum is due to him from the debtor than is really the case, and thus obtains from such third person payment of the larger sum, was held guilty of a false pretence within the statute, and that too, although he had obtained a judgment by default, not set aside, against his debtor for the larger amount. (5)

Where A. obtained money from B., a woman, under the threat of an action for breach of promise of marriage, he, A., being, in fact, a married man, already, an indictment, charging that he had falsely pretended that he was entitled to maintain an action against B. for the breach of promise was held by Maule, J., to be good. (6)

An indictment, charging A. with obtaining money from B, whose husband had run away, by falsely pretending, to B., that she, A., had power to bring back B's husband was held good. (7)

A. pretended to be carrying on an extensive business as a surveyor and house agent, and thereby induced B. to deposit with him £25 as a security for his, B's fidelity as a clerk, whereas A. was not carrying on any business as a surveyor or house agent. Held to be a false pretence. (8)

A municipality having provided some wheat for the poor. A. obtained an order for fifteen bushels, described as " three of golden drop, three of fife, nine of milling wheat." Some days afterwards he went back, and represented that the order had been accidentally destroyed, when another was given to him. He then struck out of the first order "three of golden drop, three of fife," and, presenting both orders, obtained, in all, twenty-four bushels. The indictment charged that A. unlawfully, fraudulently, and knowingly, by false pretences, did obtain an order from B. one of the municipality of C. requiring the delivery of certain wheat, by and from one D., and, by presenting the said order to D., did fraudulently, knowingly, and by false pretences, procure a certain quantity of wheat, etc., from the said D. of the goods and chattels of the said municipality, with intent to defraud. Held, that the indictment was sufficient, and not

(1) R. v. Archer, Dears. 449.

(2) R. v. Crossley, 2 M. & Rob., 17.

(3) R. v. Hughes, 1 F. & F. 355.

(4) R. v. Woolley, I Den, 559; 3 C. & K. 98; 19 L. J. (M. C.) 165.

(5) R. v. Taylor, 15 Cox, 265, 268.

(6) R. v. Copeland, C. & Mar 516.

(7) R. v. Giles, L. & C. 502 : 34 L. J. (M. C.) 50.

(8) R. v. Crabb, 11 Cox, C. C. R. 85.

uncertain or double, but in effect charged that A. obtained the order, and, by presenting it, obtained the wheat, by false pretences. (1)

An indictment containing several counts charged A. with obtaining money under false pretences, and the evidence went to show that he had, by fraudulent misrepresentations of the business he was doing in a trade, induced B. to enter into a partnership agreement, and advanced £500 to the concern; but it did not appear that the trade was altogether a fiction, or that B. had repudiated the partnership. The question being whether, upon such evidence, the jury were bound to convict, it was held that A. was entitled to an acquittal, as it was consistent with the evidence that B., as a partner, was interested in the money obtained. (2)

A., who had been discharged from B's service, went to the store of C. and D., and, representing himself as still in the employ of B., who was a customer of C. and D., asked for goods in B's name, which were sent to B'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 B."; but, instead of doing so, walked out of the house with the parcel. Held, that A. was rightly convicted of obtaining the goods from C. and D, by false pretences. (3)

A. obtained a coat, by falsely pretending that a bill of a coat of the value of 14s. 6d., of which 4s. 6d. had been paid on account, was a bill of another coat of the value of 22s., which he had had made to measure, and that 10s. only were due; it was proved that A's wife had selected the 14s. 6d. coat for him, at B'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, in which credit was given for the 4s. 6d., so paid on account On A. calling at B's shop, afterwards, 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. On the day named for trying on this second coat, A, called, and the coat was fitted on by B., who had not been present on the former occasion; and the case stated that A., 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 B handed to his daughter, to examine, and upon that A. put the coat under his arm, and, after the bill of parcels referred to had been handed to him with a receipt, went away. B. stated that, believing the bill of parcels to be a genuine bill, and that it referred to the second coat which was taken away by A., he parted with that coat on payment of the 10s., which otherwise he should not have done. Held that there was evidence to go to the jury, and that the conviction was right. (4)

A. sold to B., a railway pass, representing it to be valid in the hands of B., who believed it to be transferrable but as a matter of fact it was not transferrable but only good to carry a particular person, and could not be used, by B., except by committing a fraud upon the railway company, and at the risk of being, at any moment, expelled from the train, A. was held guilty of obtaining by false pretences the money paid to him, by B., for such pass. (5)

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. (6) 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. (7) And threatening to sue on a note made in favor of the prisoner, and which he had negotiated but pre

(1) Reg. v. Campbell, 18 U. C, Q. B. 413.

(2) Reg. v. Watson, U. C. L. J. 73 ; Dears. & B. 318; 27 L. J. (M, C.) 18. (3) Reg. v. Robinson, 9 L. C. R. 278.

(4) R. v. Steels, 16 W. R. 341.

(5) R. v. Abrahams, 24 L. C. J. 325.

(6) Reg. v. Cooper, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 510.

(7) 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.

tended he was still the holder of, thereby inducing the prosecutor to pay him is a false pretence. (1)

A prisoner who had obtained money and goods by pretending that a paper which he produced was the bank note of an existing solvent bank, which he knew had stopped payment forty years before, was held guilty of obtaining by false pretences. (?)

Where A. fraudulently misrepresented an Irish bank note of £1. to be one of £. 5, and thereby obtained from B., in change, a larger sum than its value, he was held guilty of obtaining money by false pretences, although B. had the means of detection at hand, on the face of the note, and although the note was a genuine one. (3)

If the purchaser intends to buy a particular substance, and the seller passes off to him a counterfeit, — and money is thus obtained,—that is a false prétence within the statute. (4) And it may also be constituted by a fraudulent representation as to the quantity of goods sold. For instance, where A. having contracted to sell and deliver to B. a load of coals at 7d per cwt, delivered to her a load which he knew weighed only 14 cwt, but which he stated to her contained 18 cwt and produced a ticket, to that effect, which he said he himself had made out, when the coals were weighed, and she thereupon paid him the price as for 18 cwt, which was 2s, 4d more than was really due, it was held that A was indictable for obtaining the 2s 4d by false pretences. (5)

Inducing a person to buy some packages of tea by representing the packages to contain good tea, when three fourths of the contents were to the defendant's knowledge, not tea at all but a mixture of substances unfit to drink, was held a false representation of an existing fact. (6)

In defining false pretences, article 358 expressly states, in the second paragraph, that exaggerated commendation or depreciation of the quality of a thing is not a false pretence, unless it goes so far as to amount to a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact. Thus, where A. induced B. to buy from him a chain by fraudulently representing that it was of 15-carat gold, whereas in fact it was of a quality little better than 6-carat gold-knowing at the time that he was falsely representing the quality of the chain, it was held that A. could properly be convicted of obtaining money by false pretences-there being here a statement as to a specific fact within the actual knowledge of the prisoner, viz., the proportion of pure gold in the chain. (7)

A person who obtained from a pawnbroker, upon an article which he falsely represented to be silver, a greater advance than would otherwise have been made, was held guilty of a false pretence; although the pawnbroker had the opportunity of testing the article at the time. (8)

A false representation that a stamp on a watch is the hall-mark of the Goldsmiths' Company, and that the number 18, part thereof, indicates that it is made of eighteen carat gold, is a false pretence, and is not the less so, because accompanied by the representation that the watch is a gold one, and some gold is proved to have been contained in its composition. (9)

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

(2) R. v. Dowey, 16 W. R. 344; 37 L. J. (M. C ) 52; R. v. Brady 26 U. C. Q. B. 14.

(3) R. v. Jessop. Dears & B. 442; 27 L. J. (M. C.) 70.

(4) R. v. Ragg, Bell. C C. 218; 29 L. J. (M. C.) 86.

(5) Reg. v. Sherwood, Dears. & B. 251; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 81, Reg. v. Lee L. & C. 418; 33 L. J. (M. C.) 129.

(6) R. v. Foster, L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 301.

(7) Reg. v. Ardley, L. R. I C. C. 301.

(8) R. v. Ball., C. & Mar. 249; R. v. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 24; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 101; R. v. Goss, Bell, 208; 29 L. J, (M. C.) 86.

(9) R. v. Suter, 10 Cox, 577.

Where A induced B to buy and pay for a cheese of inferior description by making the wilfully false statement that a tester of a different and superior cheese, which he produced as a sample, formed part of and had been taken out of the cheese which he so induced B to buy, it was held that he might be convicted of obtaining money by false pretences (1)

A person who sold spurious blacking which he represented to be “ Everetts Blacking" was held to be indictable for false pretences. (2)

It is not necessary that the pretence should be in words; the conduct and acts of the party may be sufficient to constitute a false pretence, without any verbal representation thus, giving, in payment, for goods obtained, a cheque upon a banker with whom the defendant has, in fact, no account is a false pretence. (3) But if the defendant at the time of giving the cheque, believes, although he has no account at the bankers upon whom he draws the cheque, that the cheque will be paid at that bank on presentation he cannot be convicted of a false pretence. Thus where A bought a mare and paid for her on Thursday, by a cheque drawn on B., a banker, with whom he had no account, but told C., from whom he bought the mare, and to whom he gave the cheque, not to present it until Saturday, to which C assented, but C, nevertheless, presented it on the same day, Thursday, when it was dishonored, and it appeared, from the evidence, that A was, on Thursday, in daily expectation of having money paid to him which would have enabled him to place the banker in funds to meet the cheque on the Saturday, it was held that there was no false pretence. (4)

A man who makes and gives a cheque for the amount of goods purchased in a ready-money transaction, makes a representation that the cheque is a good and valid order for the amount inserted in it; and if the man has only a colorable account at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, without available assets to meet it, and has no authority to over draw, and knows that the cheque be dishonored on presentation, and intends to defaud, he may be convicted of obtaining the goods by false pretences. (5)

A. falsely pretended that a post dated cheque, drawn by himself, was a good order for £25 and worth that amount, whereby he obtained from B, a watch and chain. It was proved that before the completion of the sale and delivery of the watch to A., the latter represented that he had an account with the bankers on whom the cheque was drawn, that he had a right to draw the cheque, and that it would be paid on or after the day of its date. The jury found that these representations were false and that A had no funds to pay the cheque and had no reasonable grounds to believe that it would be paid. Held, rightly convicted. (6)

Fraudulently offering a "flash note" in payment, under the pretence that it is a bank note is a false pretence. (7)

A person who fraudulently obtains goods by forwarding to the vendor the half of a bank note, which has been cut in two, he having previously parted with the corresponding half to a third party, is guilty of obtaining the goods by false pretences; for, by forwarding the half note he represents that he has the corresponding half ready for the vendor. (8)

Where a person, at Oxford, not being a member of the University, went, for the purpose of fraud, wearing a University commoner's gown, and, in this

(1) R. v. Goss, Bell, 208; 29 L. J. (M.C.) 90.

(2) R. v. Dundas, 6 Cox, 380.

(3) R. v. Lara, 6 T. R. 565; R. v. Flint, R. & R. 460. R. v. Jackson, 3 Camp. 370 R. v. Hunter, and R. v. Carter, 10 Cox, 642, 648.

(4) R. v. Walne, 11 Cox, C.C.R., 647.

(5) R. v. Hazleton, L. R., 2 C.C.R., 134; 44 L. J. (M. C.) 11.

(6) R. v. Parker, 2 Mood. C. C. 1; 7 C. & P. 825.

(7) R. v. Coulson, 1 Den. 592; 19 L. J. M. G.) 182.

(8) R. v. Murphy, 13 Cox, 298, (Irish C. C. R.).