in fact the said J. S. was not then sent by the said O. K. to the said A. B. for the said cloth, or for any cloth whatsoever, as he the said J. S. well knew at the time when he did so falsely pretend as aforesaid, against the form .. Archbold, 469.

It has been seen, by sect. 93, ante, that if, upon the trial for the misdemeanor provided for by this section, a larceny is proved, on the facts as alleged, the prisoner is not, by reason thereof, entitled to an acquittal. So far, this is in conformity with the English Act, but our Statute goes further, and, by section 99, see post, whose provisions are not in the English Act, provides that, if upon an indictment for larceny, the facts proved establish an obtaining by false pretences, the jury may find the defendant guilty of such obtaining by false pretences. This constitutes an important difference between the English Statute and our own Statute on the subject. But it is probable that the rule laid down in Reg. vs. Gorbutt, Dears & B. 166, would apply here, and that, upon an indictment for larceny, if the facts proved constitute an obtaining by false pretences, a general verdict of guilty would be wrong. It would be finding the defendant guilty of a felony, where a misdemeanor only has been proved against him.-Reg. vs. Adams, 1 Den. 38.

Moreover, in such a case, the only verdict authorized by the Statute, is "guilty of obtaining such property by false pretences with intent to defraud," and such must be the words of a verdict, under such circumstances Under section 93, the words of the Statute are different, and, if larceny is proved, upon an indictment for obtaining by false pretences, the verdict must be for the latter. "Shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor" are the words of the Statute. See Greaves' note to Reg. vs. Bryan, 2 Russell, 664. It

would have been impossible and against the spirit of the law to allow a verdict for a felony upon an indictment for a misdemeanor.-See sect. 50 of the Procedure Act of 1869.

The pretence must be set out in the indictment, R. vs. Mason, 2 T. R. 581; and it must be stated to be false, R. vs. Airey, 2 East, P. C. 30. And it must be of some existing fact; a pretence that the defendant will do some act, or that he has got to do some act is not sufficient. R. vs. Goodall, R. & R. 461; Reg. vs. Johnston, 2 Mood. 254; Reg. vs. Lee, L. & C. 309. Where the pretence is partly a misrepresentation of an existing fact, and partly a promise to do some act, the defendant may be convicted, if the property is parted with in consequence of the misrepresentation of fact, although the promise also acted upon the prosecutor's mind.-Reg. vs. Fry, Dears. & B. 449; Reg. vs. West, Dears. & B. 575; Reg. vs. Jennison, L. & C. 157.

Where the pretence, gathered from all the circumstances, was that the prisoner had power to bring back the husband of the prosecutrix, though the words used were merely promissory that she, the prisoner, would bring him back, it was held a sufficient pretence of an existing fact, and that it is not necessary that the false pretence should be made in express words, if it can be inferred from all the circumstances attending the obtaining of the pro perty.-Reg. vs. Giles, L. & C. 502.

An indictment for obtaining money by false pretences must state the false pretences with certainty, so that it may clearly appear that there was a false pretence of an existing fact where the indictment alleged that the prisoner pretended to A.'s representative that she was to give him twenty shillings for B., and that A. was going to allow B. ten shillings a week, it was held that it did

not sufficiently appear that there was any false pretence of an existing fact.-Reg. vs. Henshaw, L. & C. 444.

An indictment alleged that the prisoner obtained a coat by falsely pretending that a bill of parcels of a coat, value £0 14 6, of which £0 4 6 had been paid on account, and £0 10 0 only was due, was a bill of parcels of another coat of the value of twenty-two shillings. The evidence was that the prisoner's wife had selected the £0 14 6 coat for him subject to its fitting him, and had paid £0 4 6 on account, for which she received a bill of parcels giving credit for that amount. On trying on the coat, it was found to be too small, and the prisoner was then measured for one to cost twenty-two shillings. When that was made, it was tried on by the prosecutor, who was not privy to the former part of the transaction. The prisoner when the coat was given to him handed the bill of parcels for the £0 14 6 and also £0 10 0 to the prosecutor, saying "There is £0 10 0 to pay." The bill was receipted, and the prisoner took the twentytwo shillings coat away with him. The prosecutor stated that believing the bill of parcels to refer to the twenty-two shillings coat, he parted with that coat on payment of £0 10 0, otherwise he should not have done so; held, that there was evidence to support a conviction on the indictment.-Reg. vs. Steels, 11 Cox, 5.

So the defendant may be convicted, although the pretence is of some existing fact, the falsehood of which might have been ascertained by inquiry by the party defrauded, R. vs. Wickham, 10 Ad. & Ed. 34; Reg. vs. Woolley, 1 Den., 559; Reg. vs. Ball, Car. & M. 249; Reg. vs. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 24; or against which common prudence might have guarded, R. vs. Young, 3 T. R. 98; Reg. vs. Jessop, Dears. & B. 442; Reg. vs. Hughes, 1 F. & F. 355. If, however, the prosecutor

knows the pretence to be false, Reg. vs. Mills, Dears. & B. 205, or does not part with the goods in consequence of defendant's representation, Reg. vs. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 24, or parts with them before the representation is made, Reg. vs. Brooks, 1 F. & F. 502, or in consequence of a representation as to some future fact, R. vs. Dale, 7 Car. & P. 352, or if the obtaining of the goods is too remotely connected with the false pretence, which is a question for the jury, Reg. vs. Gardner, Dears. & B. 40; Reg. vs. Martin, 10 Cox, 383, or if the prosecutor continues to be interested in the money alleged to have been obtained, as partner with the defendant, Reg. vs. Watson, Dears. & B. 348; Reg. vs. Evans, L. & C. 252, or the object of the false pretence is something else than the obtaining of the money, Reg. vs. Stone, 1 F. & F. 311, the defendant cannot be convicted.

Falsely pretending that he has bought goods to a certain amount, and presenting a check-ticket for them, R. vs. Barnes, 2 Den. 59; or overstating a sum due for dock dues or custom duties, Reg. vs. Thompson, L. & C. 233, will render the prisoner liable to be convicted under the Statute. (See Reporter's note to this last case.)

The pretence need not be in words, but may consist of the acts and conduct of the defendant. Thus the giving cheque on a banker, with whom the defendant has no account, R. vs. Flint, R. & R. 460; R. vs. Jackson, 3 Campb. 370; R. vs. Parker, 2 Mood. 1; R. vs. Spencer, 3 Car. & P. 420; Reg. vs. Wickham, 10 Ad. & E. 34; Reg. vs. Philpott, 1 Car. & K. 112; R. vs. Freeth, R. & R. 127, or the fraudulently assuming the name of another to whom money is payable, R. vs. Story, R. & R. 81; Reg. vs. Jones, 1 Den. 551; or the fraudulently assuming the dress of a member of one of the universities, R.

vs. Barnard, 2 Car. & P. 784, is a false pretence within the Statute.

The prisoner obtained a sum of money from the prosecutor by pretending that he carried on an extensive business as an auctioneer and house agent, and that he wanted a clerk, and that the money was to be deposited as security for the prosecutor's honesty as such clerk. The jury found that the prisoner was not carrying on that business at all: held, that this was an indictable false pretence. Reg. vs. Crab, 11 Cox, 85.

The defendant, knowing that some old country bank notes had been taken by his uncle forty years before, and that the bank had stopped payment, gave them to a man to pass, telling him to say, if asked about them, that he had taken them from a man he did not know. The man passed the notes, and the defendant obtained value for them. It appears that the bankers were made bankrupt : held, that the defendant was guilty of obtaining money by false pretences, and that the bankruptcy proceedings need not be proved. Reg. vs. Dowey, 11 Cox, 115.

The indictment alleged that the prisoner was living apart from her husband under a deed of separation, and was in receipt of an income from her husband, and that he was not to be liable for her debts, yet that she falsely pretended to the prosecutor that she was living with her husband, and was authorized to apply for and receive from the prosecutor goods on the account and credit of her husband, and that her husband was then ready and willing to pay for the goods. The evidence at the trial was that the prisoner went to the prosecutor's shop and selected the goods, and said that her husband would give a cheque for them as soon as they were delivered, and that she would send the person bringing the goods to her husband's office, and that he would give