The prisoner was convicted upon an indictment. charging him, with obtaining money and goods, by pretending that a piece of paper was a bank note, then current and worth £5. It was proved that he fraudulently passed the paper as the bank note of an existing solvent firm, knowing that the bank had stopped payment forty years before. The proceedings in bankruptcy were not produced, and a witness for the prosecution proved, in cross examination, that he was employed, by the bankruptcy com. missioners, to print certain indorsements in their presence which appeared on the notes, and, without which, no holder could obtain a dividend :-Held, that the conviction was right. (a)

The prisoner represented to the prosecutor that a lot of land, on which he wished to borrow money, had a brick house upon it, and thus procured a loan on mortgage, when in fact the land was vacant :- Held, that he was properly convicted of obtaining the money under false pretences. (b)

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 22s., 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 order

(a) Reg. v. Dowey, 16 W. R. 344; 37 L. J. (М. С.) 52. (b) Reg. v. Huppel, 21 U. C. Q. B. 281.

ed 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: -Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury, and that the conviction was right. (a) 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 so, walked out of the house, with the parcel:-Held, that, under the 4 & 5 Vic., c. 25, s. 45, the prisoner was rightly convicted of having obtained the goods from O. and S. under false pretences. (b)

The prisoner sold a mare to B. taking his notes for the purchase money, one of which was for $25, and a chattel mortgage on the mare as collateral security; after this note had matured he threatened to sue on it, and pretended that he was in a position to do so. B. then got one R. to pay the money, the prisoner promising to get the notes from a

(a) Reg. v. Steels, 16 W. R. 341.
(b) Reg. v. Robinson, 9 L. C. R. 278.

lawyer's office where he said they were, and give them up next morning. This note, however, had been sold by the prisoner some time before, to another person who afterwards sued B. upon it, and obtained judgment. The jury found that the prisoner falsely pretended, he had the $25 note in his possession, or under his control, with the motive of inducing B. to part with his money:Held, that the prisoner might be properly convicted of obtaining the $25 by false pretences. (a) It is a sufficient false pretence, within the Statute, to pretend that certain drafts, in return for which the prisoner obtained from the prosecutor a mortgage and a promissory note, were good and would be paid, whereas, it appeared that these drafts were worthless from first to last, and were merely fictitious. (b)

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. (c)

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 as 15 carat gold :-Held, that the statement that the chain was 15 carat gold, not being 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, was a sufficient false pretence to sustain an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences. (d)

The questions whether statements of a seller of an

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

(b) Reg. v. Brady, 26 U. C. Q. B. 14, per Draper, C. J.

(c) 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.

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

article are matter of fact, or matter of opinion-statements of specfic facts, or mere exaggerated praise-are for the jury. (a)

It would seem, from these and other cases, that a specific representation of quality, if known to be false, is within the Statute.

It has been held that obtaining, by false pretences, the signature of the prosecutor to an acceptance of a bill of exchange, produced to him for that purpose by the defendant, with intent to defraud, was not indictable under the repealed (Imp.) Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53 (b) It would now be indictable under the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 95.

Formerly, if on an indictment for obtaining, etc., by false pretences, it was proved that the property was obtained in such manner as to amount to larceny, the defendant was entitled to an acquittal, the misdemeanor being merged in the felony. (c)

The true meaning of this clause is, that, if the obtaining by false pretences is proved, as it is laid in the indictment, the defendant is not entitled to be acquitted of the misdemeanor, simply because the case amounts to larceny. (d)

The effect of the Statute seems to be merely to prevent the operation of that rule by which a misdemeanor merged in a felony, when the facts disclosed the latter crime. It is apprehended that a party could not be convicted under this clause, unless there was sufficient proof of an obtaining by false pretences.

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

Where a defendant, on an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, has been found "guilty of larceny," the Court has no power, under the Con. Stats. U. C., c. 112, s. 3, to direct the verdict to be entered as one of "guilty," without the additional words, larceny." (b)

"of

A letter, containing a false pretence, was received by the prosecutor, through the post, in the borough of C.; but it was written and posted out of the borough. In consequence of that letter, he transmitted through the post, to the writer of the first, a Post-Office order for £20, which was received out of the borough:-Held, that, in an indictment against the writer of the first letter, for false pretences, the venue was well laid in the borough of C. (c)

Where the venue, in an indictment for obtaining sheep by false pretences, was laid in county E., where the person was convicted, and it appeared that the sheep had been obtained by the prisoner in county M., and that he conveyed them into county E., where he was appre

(a) Reg. v. Watson. 4 U. C. L. J. 73; Dears. & B. 348; 27 L. J. (M. C.) 18. (b) Reg. v. Ewing, 21 U. C. Q. B. 523. (c) Reg. v. Leech, 2 U. C. L. J. 138; Dears. 642; 25 L. J. (М. С.) 77.