Gambar halaman

Is re

§ 1220. When the false pretences consist in words used by the

respondent, it has been said to be sufficient to set them Innuendoes and out in the indictment as they were uttered, without undefinitions proper

dertaking to explain their meaning. But this must be when ex

taken with some qualification, since, as in perjury and planation

libel, it is proper and necessary that language otherwise quired.

unintelligible should be explained for the instruction of the court. Otherwise a court in error or arrest of judgment could not say that the pretences constitute an indictable offence. § 1221. The description of property obtained is required to be

the same as in larceny. But unless required by statute Descrip- the indictment need not allege that the property was of property any particular value. When, however, the punishment to be as in larceny. depends upon value, some value should be alleged," a

variance as to such value being immaterial if within the statute.

If a signature to negotiable paper be obtained, it must be stated as such.?

An indictment need not state all the property which the defendant obtained by the false pretences set forth.

tion of



State v. Call, 48 N. H. 126, 1868. Nesbitt, 102 Cal. 327, 1894; HagerSee Skiff v. People, 2 Parker C. R. 139, man v. State, 54 N. J. L. 104, 1892 ; 1853.

Jamison v. State, Ibid. 445, 1881. In a case already cited to another That a description as a certain lot of point, the indictment stated that, by dry goods” is inadequate, see Redmond the rules of a benefit society, every v. State, 35 Ohio St. 81, 1878. free member was entitled to five pounds People v. Stetson, 4 Barb. 151, on the death of his wife, and that the 1848; State v. Gillespie, 80 N. C. 396, defendant falsely pretended that a 1879; Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. & 215. paper which he produced was genuine, See, also, Com. v. Lincoln, 11 Allen, and contained a true account of his 233, 1865. wife's death and burial, and that he Supra, 82 882, 951 et seq.; Whart. further falsely pretended that he was Cr. Pl. & Pr. & 215; State v. Ludd, 32 entitled to five pounds from the society N. H. 110, 1855. by virtue of their rule, in consequence

Supra, 28 951 et seq. of the death of his wife; by means of ? State v. Blauvelt, 38 N. J. 306, which "last false pretence” he ob- 1876. Supra, & 1195; State v. Jamison, tained money; this was held good. 74 Iowa, 613, 1888. R. v. Dent, 1 C. & K. 249.

Cheque for the payment of money" ? See People v. Oyer & Terminer is a sufficient description. Com. v. Coe, Court, 83 N. Y. 436, 1881.

115 Mass. 481, 1874. But see Bonnell * See supra, & 977; and see Com. v. v. State, 64 Ind. 498, 1878. Howe, 132 Mass. 250, 1882; State v. People v. Parish, 4 Denio, 153, Kube, 20 Wis. 217, 1866; Treadaway 1847. See Skiff v. People, 2 Parker v. State, 37 Ark. 443, 1881 ; People v. C. R. 139, 1853.




must be


must be

$ 1222. The property obtained must be identified so as to protect the defendant in case of a second prosecution. Thus,

Property where an indictment for obtaining the signature of

per- obtained son to a deed of land did not allege that the grantor in individthe deed owned or claimed any title to the land conveyed

uated. thereby, and a description of the land was in the most general terms, as certain land in the State of Texas and United States of America, and the date of the deed was nowhere averred, so that it would be impossible to identify the instrument; and it did not appear that the deed would tend to the hurt or prejudice of the grantor, and there was no averment that the deed could not be more particularly described, it was held that in these particulars the indictment was defective. Goods, as a rule, should be described with the same particularity as in larceny.

$ 1223. It is necessary to state whose the property was at the time. “Of the moneys of B." is a sufficient allegation

Owner of ownership.A special property is sufficient to sus- must be tain an averment of ownership.

$ 1224. It is necessary for the pleader to negative specifically the false pretences relied on to sustain the indictment;'

Pretences but if the proof be adequate as to the offence, though only coming up to a portion of the pretence averred in negatived.

State v. Crooker, 95 Mo. 389, 1888. goods were which it was the object of ? Dord v. People, 9 Barb. 671, 1851. the conspiracy to obtain, is bad in

State v. Reese, 83 N. C. 637, 1880. arrest of judgment. R. v. Parker, 2 Indictment should aver that defendant G. & D. 709; 3 Q. B. 292; Mays v. acquired the goods. Cannon v. State, State, 28 Tex. App. 484, 1890 ; State (Tex.) 15 S. W. Rep. 117, 1890. v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558, 1884.

* R. v. Martin, 3 N. & P. 472; 8 Ad. 5 R. v. Godfrey, Dears. & B. 426; 7 & El. 481; R. v. Norton, 8 C. & P.196; Cox C. C. 392. Sill v. R., Dears. C. C. 132; 1 El. & 6 Supra, ?? 932 et seq.; Mack v. State, Bl. 553. See State v. Lathrop, 15 Vt. 63 Ala. 138, 1879. 279, 1843; Halley v. State, 43 Ind. ? People v. Haynes, 11 Wend. 557, 509, 1873.

1834; R. v. Perrott, 2 M. & S. 379; Under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17, an Redmond v. State, 35 Ohio St. 81, indictment charging that the prisoner, 1878; Tyler v. State, 2 Humph. 37, by fraud in playing at cards, did win 1840; Amos v. State, 10 Ibid. 117, from A. a sum of money with intent to 1849; State v. Webb, 26 Iowa, 262, cheat A., need not necessarily allege 1868. See Com, v. Rosenberg, 3 Lanc. that the money won was the property L. Rev. 75, 1886. The negation must of A. R. v. Moss, Dears. & B. C. C. be specific. Keller v. State, 51 Ind. 104. But an indictment for a con- 111, 1875; State v. Bradley, 68 Mo. spiracy to obtain goods by false pre- 140, 1878; State v. De Lay, 93 Mo. tences, not stating whose property the 98, 1887; State v. Palmer, 50 Kans.


the indictment, a conviction is good. In fact, as is well said by Lord Ellenborough,“to state merely the whole of the false pretence is to state a matter generally combined of some truth as well as falsehood.” Where, however, there are several distinct pretences, it is better to negative each pretence specifically in the indictment; since if only one of the pretences thus negatived be well laid, and be proved on trial to have been the moving cause of the transfer of property from the prosecutor to the defendant, the rest may be disregarded. § 1225. The defendant's knowledge of the falsity of the pre

tences is material, and hence must be averred, unless

the pretences stated are of such a nature as to exclude averred.

the possible hypothesis of the defendant's ignorance of their falsity. A reckless statement of a fact of which the narrator is ignorant may be equivalent to a statement he knows to be false.6

$ 1226. An intent to defraud must be averred and proved; but

Scienter must be


318, 1893; State v. Metsch, 37 Kans. alleged that the defendant “did un222, 1887; State v. Trissler, 49 Ohio lawfully falsely pretend,” etc., it was St. 583, 1892; People v. Reynolds, 71 held that the omission of the word Mich. 343, 1888; People v. Behee, 90 “knowingly” was no ground for arMich. 356, 1892.

resting the judgment. R. v. Bowen, Supra, % 1218; R. v. Hill, R. & R. 4 New Sess. Cas. 62; 13 Q. B. 790; 3 190; Com. v. Morrill, 8 Cush. 571, Cox C. C. 483. 1851; People v. Stone, 9 Wend. 182, 5 R. v. Philpotts, 1 C. & K. 112; R. 1832; People v. Haynes, 11 Ibid. 557, v. Keighley, Dears. & B. 145; 7 Cox 1834 ; State v. Smith, 8 Blackf. 489, C. C. 217; Com. v. Speer, 2 Va. Cas. 1847.

65, 1817; State v. Bradley, 68 Mo. 140, 2 R. v. Perrott, ut supra.

1878; though see Com. v. Blumenthal, 3 See Whart. Crim. Ev. 22 131-3. cited Whart. Prec. 242; and Com. v. Supra, 1218.

Hulbert, 12 Metc. 446, 1847. See, as * Supra, // 1165, 1185, 1210. State to general pleading of scienter, Whart. v. Blauvelt, 38 N. J. L. 306, 1876; Cr. Pl. & Pr. % 164. That “ designPeople v. Spiegel, (N. Y.) 38 N. E. edly” implies a scienter, see State v. Rep. 284, 1894 ; People v. Fitzgerald, Snyder, 63 Ind. 203, 1879. 92 Mich. 328, 1892.

Supra, % 1185. See Reese Mining Thus an indictment for obtaining Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 79. Infra, money under false pretences must & 1246. allege that the defendant knew the Supra, ?1184; People v. Getchell, falsehood: "falsely and fraudulently” 6 Mich. 496, 1859 ; Scott v. People, 62 is not enough. R. v. Henderson, 2 M. Barb. 62, 1872; State v. Jackson, 112 C. C. 192; Car. & M. 828; State v. Mo. 585, 1892; State v. Clark, 46 Bradley, 68 Mo. 140, 1878. Supra, Kans. 65, 1891; Jacobs v. State, 31 1185. But where the indictment Nebr. 33, 1890 ; State v. Lewis, 41 La.



Intent to

it is not necessary, in England, to state, to use the language of Lord Denman, C. J., “ that the false pretence defraud was made with the intention of obtaining the thing, if it some way be proved that in fact the party charged did intend to appear. obtain the thing, made the false pretence, and did thereby obtain it. I am by no means sure that it is necessary even to prove that the representation was made with the particular intent.”

An intent to defraud a firm necessarily includes an intent to defraud each of its members, and hence it is enough, when a firm is defrauded, to aver an intent to defraud a member of the firm.?

An intent laid to defraud any one having an interest in the property is enough.3

An. 590, 1889; State v. Switzer, 63 Under 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 21, an Vt. 604, 1891 ; State v. Garris, 98 N. indictment for obtaining goods by C. 733, 1887; State v. Burke, 108 N. means of false pretences, with intent C. 750, 1891; U. S. v. Bradford, 53 to defraud a specified person, was bad, Fed. Rep. 542, 1893 ; U. S. v. Beatty, unless it stated whose property the 60 Fed. Rep. 740, 1894; State v. Kain, goods were, and the defect was not 118 Mo, 5, 1893.

aided after verdict. R. v. Martin, 3 The intent to defraud is not suffi- N. & P. 472; 8 Ad. & El. 481; S. P., R. ciently set forth in a statement that v. Norton, 8 C. & P. 196. A. did unlawfully attempt and en- By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 8, it dearor fraudulently, falsely, and un- shall be sufficient, in an indictment lawfully to obtain from the Agricul- for obtaining property by false pretural Cattle Insurance Company a tences, to allege that the defendant large sum of money, to wit, £22 108., did the act with intent to defraud, with intent to cheat and defraud the without alleging the intent of the decompany. R. v. Marsh, 1 Den. C. C. fendant to be to defraud any particu505; T. & M. 192; 3 New Sess. Cas. lar person. By section 25, every ob699.

jection to an indictment for any formal 1 R. v. Hamilton, 2 Cox C. C. 11; 9 defect apparent on the face thereof Ad. & El. (N. S.) 276; cited fully, shall be taken before the jury shall be supra, $ 1213. That the omission of sworn. It was ruled that section 8 the allegation of intent is not fatal did not render it unnecessary, in an after verdict, under statute, see State indictment for obtaining money by t. Bacon, 7 Vt. 219, 1835; Jim v. false pretences, to state whose propState, 8 Humph. 603, 1848. That it is erty the money was, and that the no variance that the proof goes only omission was not a formal defect within to a part of the money, to which the section 25. Sill v. R, Dears. C. C. intent to defraud relates, see R. v. 132; 1 El. & Bl. 553. 24 & 25 Vict. Leonard, 3 Cox C. C. 284; 1 Den. C. c. 96, s. 88, renders an allegation of C. 304.

ownership unnecessary. See State v. Under the English statutes the fol- Neimeier, 66 Iowa, 634, 1885. lowing rulings have been made, which ? Stoughton v. State, 2 Ohio St. 562, are applicable to the corresponding 1853. See supra, 28 743, 1212. statutes of this country.

3 Mack v. State, 63 Ala. 138, 1879;

An averment that A. “ did receive and obtain the said goods of said B. from said B. by means of the false pretences aforesaid, and with intent to cheat and defraud the said B. of the same goods,” has been held a sufficient averment that the goods were designedly obtained. But there must be a specific averment of intent to defraud.?

§ 1227. The property must be distinctly averred to have been obtained by means of the pretence. But the process of reasoning by which the conclusion was reached is usually matter of argument,

not of pleading.* At the same time, there must always Obtaining " by be something sufficient to show that the party defrauded means" of

was induced to part with his property by relying upon the pretence

truth of the alleged false statements. And it is not, as a general rule, as has been seen, enough to aver false state

must be averred.

Stringer v. State, 13 Tex. App. 520, not follow from the premises. The 1883; Com. v. Dunleay, 153 Mass. only allegation of an intent to defraud 330, 1891.

is made argumentatively, and as a 1 Com. v. Hooper, 104 Mass. 549, legal inference from facts stated, and 1870. But see supra, & 1210.

that inference is unsound. Com. v. ? Com. v. Dean, 110 Mass. 64, 1872. Whitney, 5 Gray, 85; R.v. Rushworth,

In this case it was said by Morton, R. & R. 317.” J.: “ The indictment does not charge • R. v. Kelleher, 14 Cox C. C. 48; any offence with the precision requisite 2 Ir. L. R. Q. B. D. 11; Ladd v. State, in criminal pleadings. There is no 17 Fla. 215, 1879; State v. Lewis, 26 sufficient allegation that the defendant Kans. 123, 1881 ; Pendry v. State, 18 obtained the signature of Sears to the Fla. 191, 1881 ; Cook v. State, 83 Ind. note with an intent to defraud. The 402, 1882; Hightower v. State, 23 intent to defraud is an essential ele- Tex. App. 451, 1887; State v. Conner, ment of the crime intended to be 110 Ind. 469, 1887; State v. Chapel, charged, and must be distinctly averred 117 Mo. 639, 1893. by a proper affirmative allegation, and * R. v. Hamilton, 9 Ad. & El. (N. not by way of inference or argument S.) 271; Com. v. Hulbert, 12 Metc. merely. Com. v. Lannan, 1 Allen, 446, 1847; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 590, 1861.

481, 1874; Baker v. State, 14 Tex. “The concluding clause that'so the App. 332, 1883. See supra, & 1215. jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths It is said in Missouri that the aforesaid, do say and present the said phrase, “by color of said false preDean' 'in the manner aforesaid, de- tence,” is bad. State v. Chunn, 19 signedly, by a false pretence and with Mo. 233, 1853. See R. v. Airey, 2 intent to defraud, obtained the signa- East, 30. ture of said Sears,' is a statement of a 5 State v. Philbrick, 31 Me. 401, legal conclusion from the facts pre- 1850; Com. v. Strain, 10 Metc. 521, viously charged. The conclusion does 1845; Norris v. State, 25 Ohio St. 217,

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »