defraud the people of the said state, whilst he used and exercised his said trade and business, to wit, &c., and in divers other days and times between that day and the day of taking of this inquisition, at, &c., did knowingly, wilfully, falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully keep in a certain shop there, wherein he the said A. B. did so as aforesaid carry on his said trade, a certain false pair of scales for the weighing of goods, wares and merchandises by him sold in the way of his said trade, which said scales were then and there by artful and deceitful contrivance so made and constructed, as to cause every quantity of goods, wares and merchandises weighed therein and sold thereby, to appear of greater weight than the real and true weight, by one-tenth part of such apparent weight; and that the said A. B., on, &c., aforesaid, at, &c., aforesaid (he the said A. B. then and there well knowing the said scales to be false as aforesaid), did knowingly, wilfully and fraudulently sell and utter to one C. D.,(aa) a citizen of the said state, certain goods in the way of his said trade, to wit, a large quantity of tea, weighed in and by the said false scales, and as and for ten pounds weight of tea, whereas in truth and in fact the weight of the said tea so sold as aforesaid, was short and deficient of the said weight of ten pounds, by one-tenth part of the said weight of ten pounds, to wit, at, &c., aforesaid, against, &c. (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

(500) Against a baker for selling loaves to poor persons under weight, and obtaining pay from them, under the pretence that they were of full weight.(a)

That heretofore, to wit, on the 21st day of January, 1854, at the Parish of Great Yarmouth, in the Borough of Great Yarmouth, and within the jurisdiction of this court, J. Eagleton, of the parish aforesaid, in the borough aforesaid, baker, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, did falsely pretend to one William Christmas Nutman, then being relieving officer of the said parish of Great Yarmouth, that he, the said John Eagleton, had on the day and year last aforesaid, supplied and delivered to one Samuel Lingwood, he being a poor person of the said parish, two loaves of bread, and that each of the said two loaves of bread then weighed three pounds and one-half of a pound, by means of which said false pretence the said John Eagleton did then and there unlawfully attempt and endeavor, fraudulently, falsely and unlawfully, to obtain from the guardians of the poor of the said parish, a sum of money, to wit, the sum of 1s. of the moneys of the said guardians, with the intent thereby then and there to defraud; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said two loaves of bread did not each weigh, nor did either of them weigh three pounds and one-half of a pound, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lady the queen, her crown and dignity.

(501) Cheating at common law by false cards. (b)

That A. B. et al., being persons of dishonest conversation, and common gamblers and deceivers, with false dice and cards, on, &c., at, &c., contriving, practising, and falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully intending one A. S. with false cards and false play, falsely, unlawfully, unjustly, fraudulently and deceitfully to deceive and defraud, and from the said A. S. by means of the said false cards and false play, craftily and subtly, falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully, different sums of money to acquire and obtain, then and there

(aa) It is better to aver a particular person defrauded, though it seems enough, if such be the fact, to allege the sale to have been to divers citizens unknown; 2 Stark. C. P. 467.

(a) This count was sustained in R. v. Eagleton, 33 Eng. Law and Eq. 545. (b) Stark. C. P. 444.

did solicit, incite, provoke and procure the said A. S. to play with them the said A. B. et al., at a certain unlawful game called whist, for divers sums of money, by means whereof the said A. S. did then and there play with the said A. B., &c., at the said unlawful game called whist, for divers sums of money, and that the said A. B. et al. did then and there, with force and arms, at the said unlawful game called whist, by means of false cards and false play, subtly, falsely, unlawfully and fraudulently receive, have and obtain into their own hands and possession, the sum of eighty pounds of lawful moneys of the said A. S. and from the said A. S., and the same did then and there carry away, to the great damage, &c., and against, &c. (c) (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

(502) Second count.

sage.

Cheating at common law, at a game of dice called pas

That the defendants being such persons as aforesaid, on, &c., at, &c., did solicit, incite, provoke and procure the said A. S. to play with them the said A. B. et al., at a certain unlawful game called passage, for divers sums of money, by means whereof the said A. S. did then and there play with the said A. B. et al., at the said unlawful game called passage for divers sums of money, and that the said A. B. et al. did then and there with false dice and by false throwing of the same, that is to say, by slurring the said dice, subtly, falsely, unlawfully and fraudulently receive, have and obtain into their own hands and possession, the sum of eighty pounds of the lawful moneys of the said A. S. and from the said A. S., and the same did then and there carry away, to the great damage, &c., and against, &c. (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

(503) Information. Passing a sham bank note, the offence being charged as a false token. (d)

D. K., attorney to the State of Connecticut, for the County of New Haven, now here in court information makes that G. B. S., of the Town of New Haven, in the County of New Haven, on, &c., did wilfully and designedly, and with intent to cheat and defraud one F. W. I., of said Town of New Haven, utter and pass to the said F. W. I., as money, a certain false token made and executed after the general similitude of a bill of a banking company intended as money, and purporting to be a bank bill of the denomination of five dollars, and to have been issued by a banking company or corporation in the State of New York, by and under the name of "The Globe Bank," and purporting also to be signed by N. B., as president, and to be countersigned by S. D. D., as cashier thereof; which false token is of the following purport and effect, that is to say (here set out the token or bill); whereby and by means of said false token the said G. B. S. did then and there knowingly and fraudulently obtain from the said F. W. I. certain goods, the property of the said F. W. I., that is to say, one pair of boots of the value of five dollars; whereas in truth and in fact, at the time when said false token was so uttered and passed to the said F. W. I., no such banking company or corporation existed in the State of New York as 66 The Globe Bank," nor did such banking company or corporation ever have existence in said State of New York, nor was there at the time when said false token was uttered and passed to the said F. W. I. as aforesaid, or at any other time, any banking company or corporation in the State of New York known by or doing business under the name of "The Globe Bank," but said pretended bank bill, and pretended signatures thereto, were

(c) R. v. Arnope, Trem. 91, and see R. v. Betsworth, Trem. 93.

(d) On this information, which was drawn by Mr. Kimberly, of New Haven, the defendant was convicted and sentence passed.

All which is to the great

and are wholly false, fictitious, and fraudulent. damage and deception of the said F. W. I., against, &c., and contrary, &c. Whereupon the attorney prays the advice of this honorable court in the premises.

(504) Obtaining goods by means of a sham bank note, as a misdemeanor at common law.

That A. B., &c., on, &c., at, &c., falsely and deceitfully did obtain and get into his hands and possession, from one T. C., three yards of velvet, &c., of the value in the whole of nine dollars eighty-seven and a half cents, of the goods and chattels, wares and merchandise of the said T. C., and bank notes and money of the said T. C. to the further amount of ten dollars and twelve and a half cents, by color and means of a certain false note and token, purporting to be a bank note for twenty dollars, issued and purporting to be payable on demand by the Ohio Exporting and Importing Company, at their bank in Cincinnati, and purporting to be subscribed by one Z. S., president, and countersigned by J. L., cashier, and which said false note the said F. C. believed to be a true bank note for twenty dollars; and that he the said J. S. did thereby and therefor procure the said T. C. then and there to deliver to him the said J. S. the goods and chattels, wares, merchandise, bank notes, and money of him the said T. C. aforesaid, he the said J. S. then and there well knowing the said note to be false and fraudulent as aforesaid, to the great injury and deception of him the said T. C., to the evil example, &c., and contrary to the form of the statute, &c. (e) (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

(505) Cheat by means of a counterfeit letter.(ƒ)

That J. G., &c., on, &c., at, &c., a certain false and counterfeit letter in the name of a certain T. G., of the township aforesaid, farmer, to a certain B. D.,

(e) Com. v. Speer, 2 Va. Cases 65. The prisoner was convicted, but, before judgment was rendered, the court below adjourned to general court the following questions: 1. Is the falsely passing as a true note a false and forged note purporting to be a note of the Bank of the Ohio Exporting and Importing Company, and purporting to be signed and payable as in the indictment is set forth, and procuring the goods and other property in the indictment mentioned for the said false and forged note, when no such bank or company ever existed, either chartered or unchartered, such a false token or counterfeit letter as comes within the true intent and meaning of the act of Assembly, passed November, 1789, and if so, is the indictment in this case good and sufficient? 2. If this is not an offence within the act of Assembly, is it an indictable offence at common law, and if so, can judgment be given against the defendant upon this indictment, that he be imprisoned, the jury not having assessed a fine?

Per curiam: "The court is unanimously of opinion, that the falsely passing as a true note a false and forged note purporting to be a note on the Bank of the Ohio Exporting and Importing Company, and purporting to be signed and payable as in the indictment is set forth, and procuring the goods and other property in the indictment mentioned for the said false and forged note, when no such bank or company ever existed, either chartered or unchartered, is not such an offence as can be prosecuted under the act entitled 'An act against those who counterfeit letters or privy tokens, to receive money or goods in other men's names,' passed November 18th, 1789.

"And the court is further unanimously of opinion, that the offence of falsely procuring the goods, &c., of other men by means of a false and counterfeit note, such as is set forth in the indictment, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, is indictable as a cheat at common law, but that judgment cannot be rendered against the defendant in this case, because the indictment doth not expressly aver that the said defendant knew that the said note was a false and fraudulent note."

The count in the text has been amended by the insertion of the scienter required by the court, though, even as thus qualified, it is questionable whether a more full averment of the invalidity of the notes would not be advisable.

(f) This indictment was framed in 1756, by Benjamin Chew, the then AttorneyGeneral of Pennsylvania.

in the Township of Plymouth, in the said county, merchant, directed, falsely and deceitfully contrived, made, imagined, and devised, the tenor of which said false and counterfeit letter follows in these words, to wit:

"New Providence, December 25th, 1755. Friend B. D., let the bearer, J. G., have half a gallon of rum; he is going down the road a little way, and at his return send me half a gallon home by him, and I will pay you; the latter end of next week I shall go to town.

T. G."

And afterwards, to wit, the day and year aforesaid, at Plymouth Township aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said false and counterfeit letter to the aforesaid B. D. falsely and deceitfully did give and deliver, by color and means of which said false and counterfeit letter, so as aforesaid to the said B. D. delivered, the said J. G., the day and year aforesaid, at Plymouth Township aforesaid, in his hands and possession, one gallon of rum of and from the aforesaid B. D. falsely, unlawfully, unjustly, and deceitfully did acquire and obtain, and the said B. then and there of the aforesaid one gallon of rum falsely, unlawfully, unjustly, and deceitfully did deceive and defraud, to the evil and pernicious example of all others in such case delinquent, and against, &c. (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

II. FALSE PERSONATION OF BAIL.

(506) Under 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Wm. IV. c. 66, s. 11.(g)

That A. B., late, &c., on, &c., at, &c., before the right honorable Sir J. P., knight, one of the barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, at Westminster (the said Sir J. P., knight, then and there having lawful authority to take any recognizance of bail in any suit then depending in the said court), then and there feloniously did acknowledge a certain recognizance of bail, in the name of J. N., in a certain cause then depending in the said court, wherein A. B. was plaintiff, and C. D. defendant, he, the said J. N., not being then and there privy or consenting to the said J. S., so acknowledging such recognizance in his name as aforesaid, against, &c., and against, &c. (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

III. SECRETING GOODS, &c.

(507) Secreting, &c., with intent to defraud, &c.

(508)

(509)

(510)

(511)

(512)

Second count. Same, with intent to defraud and prevent such
property from being made liable for payment of debts.
Third count. Same, not specifying property.

Fourth count. Averring intent to defraud persons unknown.
Fifth count. Same, not specifying goods, with intent to defraud
persons unknown.

Sixth count. Same, with intent to prevent property from being

levied on.

(513) Another form on the same statute. First count, intent to defraud, to prevent property being made liable, &c.

Second count. Same, with intent to defraud another person. Third count. Secreting, assigning, &c., with intent to defraud two, &c.

(514)

(515)

(517)

creditors.

Secreting, &c., averring creditors to be judgment

Fifth count. Same, in another shape.

(518) Fraudulent conveyance under Statute Eliz., ch. 5, § 3.

(g) Arch. C. P. 7th Am. ed. 478.

(507) First count. Secreting, &c., with intent to defraud, &c.(h) That A. K., &c., on, &c., at, &c., being a person of an evil disposition, ill name and fame, and of dishonest conversation, and unlawfully devising and intending to defraud A. C. R. and H. B., merchants, doing business in the City of New York, under the name, style, and firm of R. and B., said firm of R. and B. being creditors of him the said A. K., on, &c., at, &c., unlawfully did secrete, assign, convey, and dispose of (hh) the personal property of him the said A. K., to wit, &c. (stating goods, as in larceny), with intent to defraud the said firm of R. and B., then and there being creditors of him the said A. K., to the great damage of the said A. C. R. and H. B., doing business as aforesaid under the name, style, and firm of R. and B., against, &c., and against, &c. (Conclude as in book 1, chap. 3.)

(508) Second count. Same, with intent to defraud and prevent such property from being made liable for payment of debts.

That the said A. K. further devising and intending to defraud the said A. C. R. and H. B., doing business under the name, style, and firm of R. and B., so being creditors as aforesaid of him the said A. K., afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, with force and arms, at the ward, city and county aforesaid, wickedly, fraudulently, and unlawfully, did secrete, assign, convey, and dispose of, certain other property of him the said A. K., to wit, &c., with intent then and there to defraud the said A. C. R. and H. B., doing business under the name, style, and firm of R. and B. as aforesaid, and then

(h) The 26th section of the act abolishing imprisonment for debt in New York (Laws of 1831, 402), and the 20th section of the act under the same title in Pennsylvania (Pamph. Laws, 1842, 339; Purd. 585), make it penal in a debtor to secrete his goods with intent to defraud his creditors. The precedent in the text has been several times sustained in New York, though it has not yet received a final adjudication in the Pennsylvania courts. In New York, the question came up in People v. Underwood, 16 Wend. 546. In that case exception was taken, because it was neither averred nor proved that the prosecutory creditors were judgment creditors. Bronson J., in noticing this position, said: "The 26th section of the statute, under which the defendant was indicted, declares that 'any person who shall remove any of his property out of any county, with intent to prevent the same from being levied upon by any execution, or who shall secrete, assign, convey, or otherwise dispose of any of his property with intent to defraud any creditor, or to prevent such property being made liable for the payment of his debts, and any person who shall receive such property with such intent, shall, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. The language of the act plainly extends to all creditors, and I can perceive no sufficient reason for restricting its construction to such creditors as have obtained judgments for their demands. The fraudulent removal, assignment, or conveyance of property by a debtor, which the legislature intended to punish criminally, usually takes place in anticipation of a judgment, and for the very purpose of defeating the creditor of the fruits of his recovery. If there must first be a judgment before the crime can be committed, the statute will be of very little public importance. This is not like the case of a creditor seeking a civil remedy against a fraudulent debtor. There the creditor must complete his title by judgment and execution, before he can control the debtor in the disposition of his property; he must have a certain claim upon the goods before he can inquire into any alleged fraud on the part of the debtor; Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. 144. But this is a public prosecution, in which the creditor has no special interest. The legislature has relieved the honest debtor from imprisonment, and subjected the fraudulent one to punishment as for a criminal offence. The crime consists in assigning or otherwise disposing of his property with intent to defraud a creditor, or to prevent it from being made liable for the payment of his debts. The public offence is complete, although no creditor may be in a condition to question the validity of the transfer in the form of a civil remedy. I think the jury were properly instructed on this question, and that the exception should be overruled." See Wh. C. L., § 2165, &c.

As to the extent of "creditors" in the act, see Johnes v. Potter, 5 S. & R. 519, where it was held that the word included not only persons whose debts are due and payable, but those whose debts are not yet due.

(hh) See Wh. C. L., § 390, as to this joinder.