Page images
PDF
EPUB

against

(Add other counts, as the case may suggest.)-3 Burn's Just. 320.

Indictments, under sections 77 and 78, may readily be framed from the above, omitting the special allegations as to safe custody, &c., &c.-3 Burn's Just. 320.

...

Indictment, under sect. 79, against a factor for pledging goods..... that A. B. on .. did intrust to C. D., he, the said C. D. then being a factor and agent, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value of one thousand pounds, for the purpose of selling the same, and that the said C. D. afterwards, contrary to and without the authority of the said A. B., for his own benefit, and in violation of good faith, unlawfully did deposit the said cotton with E. F. of . . . . as and by way of a pledge, lien and security, for a sum of money, to wit, one hundred pounds, by the said C. D. then borrowed and received of and from the said E. F. against the . . . . . . 3 Burn's Just. 320.

Indictment, under sect. 81, against a trustee for fraudu lent conversion.-The Jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that, before and at the time of the committing of the offences hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on .. C. D. was a trustee for certain property, to wit, five thousand pounds three per centum consolidated bank annuities wholly (or partially) for the benefit of J. N., and that he, the said C. D., so being such trustee as aforesaid, on the day and year aforesaid, unlawfully and wilfully did convert and appropriate the said property to his own use, with intent thereby then to defraud, against the form... (Add counts alleging that the defendant disposed of, showing the mode of disposition, or destroyed the property, if necessary).—3 Burn's Just. 321.

Indictment, under sect. 82, against a director for fraud

ulent conversion of the company's money.-The jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that before and at the time of the committing of the offence hereinafter mentioned, C. D. was a director of a certain public company, called .... and that he, the said C. D., so being such director as aforesaid, on the ......did unlawfully and fraudulently take and apply for his own use and benefit, certain money, to wit, one thousand pounds, of and belonging to the said Company, against the -3 Burn's Just. 321.

Indictment, under sect. 83, against directors for keeping fraudulent accounts.that C. D. on .. then being a director of a certain body corporate, called . . . . unlawfully did, as such director, receive and possess himself of certain of the property of the said body corporate, otherwise than in payment of a just debt or demand, to wit, the sum of one hundred pounds, and unlawfully, with intent to defraud, did omit to make a full and true entry of the said sum, in the books and accounts of the said body corporate, against ... ... 3 Burn's Just. 321.

....

Indictment, under sect. 84, against a director for destroying or falsifying books, &c., &c.-.... that C. D. on then being a director of a certain body corporate called unlawfully, with intent to defraud, did destroy (alter, or mutilate, or falsify) a certain book (or paper, or writing, or valuable security) to wit.... belonging to the said body corporate, against the form -3 Burn's Just. 321.

Indictment, under sect. 85, against a director for publishing fraudulent statements....... that before and at the time of the committing of the offences hereinafter mentioned, C. D. was a director of a certain public company, called........, and that he, the said C. D., so being such director as aforesaid, on ...... did unlawfully cir

culate and publish a certain written statement and account, which said written statement was false in certain material particulars, that is to say, in this, to wit, that it was therein falsely stated that (state the particulars), he the said C. D. then well knowing the said written statement and account to be false in the several particulars aforesaid, with intent thereby then to deceive and defraud J. N., then being a shareholder of the said public company (or with intent....) against the form

Add counts stating the intent to be to deceive and defraud "certain persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, being shareholders of the said public company," and also varying the allegation of the intent as in the section.-3 Burn's Just. 321; Archbold, 467.

FALSE PRETENCES.

Sect. 93. Whosoever by any false pretence obtains from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding three years and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement; provided, that if, upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanor, it is proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny, he shall not, by reason thereof, be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor, and no person tried for such misdemeanor shall be liable to be afterwards prosecuted for larceny upon the same facts; provided also, that it shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining or attempting to obtain any such property by false pretences, to allege

that the party accused did the act with intent to defraud, and without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person, and without alleging any ownership of the chattel, money or valuable security; and on the trial of any such indictment, it shall not be necessary to prove an intent to defraud any particular person, but it shall be sufficient to prove that the party accused did the act charged with an intent to defraud.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 88, Imp.

See post, sect. 94.

As to the meaning of the words "valuable security," see ante, sect. 1.

As to fining the offender and requiring him to give sureties for the peace, in misdemeanors under this Act, see post, sect. 122, and sect. 110, post, for additional punishment, where value of property is over $200.

As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94 of the Procedure Act of 1869.

By sect. 49, of the Procedure Act of 1869, upon an indictment under any of these sections, the jury may return a verdict of guilty of an attempt to commit the offence charged, if the evidence warrants it.-Reg. vs. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 24; Reg. vs. Eagleton, Dears. 376, 515; Reg. vs Hensler, 11 Cox, 570; Archbold, 484. A verdict under sect. 110, post, may also be given. No indictment can be preferred for obtaining money or other property by false pretences, unless one or other of the preliminary steps required by sect. 28 of the Procedure Act of 1869 has been taken.

Cheats and frauds, heretofore punishable at common law, are now punishable under sect. 86 of the Procedure Act of 1869.

The following is quoted from an American case, reported in 12 Cox, 208, the Commonwealth vs. Yerker:

"The distinction between larceny and false pretences is a very nice one in many instances. In some of the old English cases the difference is more artificial than real, and rests purely upon technical grounds. Much of this nicety is doubtless owing to the fact that at the time these cases were decided larceny was a capital felony in England, and the judges naturally leaned to a merciful interpretation of the law out of a tender regard for human life. But whatever may have been the cause, the law has come down to us with such distinctions The distinction between larceny and false pretences is well stated in Russell, on Crimes, 2nd Vol., 4th Edit., p. 200: "The correct description in cases of this kind seems to be that, if by means of any trick or artifice the owner of property is induced to part with the possession only, still meaning to retain the right of property, the taking by such means will amount to larceny; but if the owner part with not only the possession of the goods, but the right of property in them also, the offence of the party obtaining them will not be larceny, but the offence. of obtaining goods by false pretences."

Indictment.-... that J. S. on ....... unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to one A. B. that the said J. S. then was the servant of one O. K., of ...... tailor, (the said O. K. then and long before being well known to the said A. B. and a customer of the said A. B. in his business and way of trade as a woollen draper), and that the said J. S. was then sent by the said O. K. to the said A. B. for five yards of superfine woollen cloth, by means of which said false pretences, the said J. S. did then unlawfully obtain from the said A. B. five yards of superfine woollen cloth, with intent to defraud; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said J. S. was not then the servant of the said O. K., and whereas in truth and

« PreviousContinue »