Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

amount so misapplied, and by imprisonment in the jail of the proper city or county for not less than three months, nor more than one year: Provided, That prosecutions for all offences under this act, shall be commenced within six years from the time when such offence was committed.

XII. RECEIVING OR BUYING FROM MINORS AND OTHERS, SCRAP-IRON, BRASS, LEAD, COPPER, ETC., HOW PUNISHED. Act 11 April, 1866, Sec. 1, P. L., 604.-Any person in Allegheny or Schuylkill County, receiving or buying from minors, or unknown and irresponsible parties, any scrap-iron, brass, lead, copper or other metal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, in the Court of Quarter Sessions in the proper county, shall be sentenced to pay a fine, of not more than five hundred dollars, and to undergo an imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, or either, at the discretion of the court.

Act 24 April, 1869, Sec. 1, P. L., 1212.—Any person hereafter, in the counties of Lancaster and Philadelphia, buying or receiving from minors, knowing them to be such, or from persons unknown to such person, buying or so receiving, or from persons pursuing no trade, labor or employment for a livelihood, any scrapiron, brass, lead, copper or other metal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Quarter Sessions of the proper county, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to undergo an imprisonment in solitary confinement, of not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.

XIII. CHEATING BY FALSE PRETENCES.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 111, P. L., 410.—If any person shall, by any false pretence, obtain the signature of any person to any written instrument, or shall obtain from any other person, any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to cheat and defraud any person of the same, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine, not exceeding five hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment, not exceeding three years: Provided always, That if upon the trial of any person indicted for such a misdemeanor, it

shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in 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.

1. Commonwealth v. Hickey, 1843, 1 Clark, 436.-Under the Act of 12 July, 1842, a mere naked lie does not make a man criminally responsible.

2. The purchase of goods, by specious promises, and false also, does not make the purchaser a criminal.

False pretence discussed and defined.

1. Commonwealth v. McCrossin, 1843, 2 Clark, 6.-The jury must render separate verdicts when several bills are submitted to them at the same time.

2. "It is not every false promise or statement made by a man with the view of fraudulently obtaining the property of another, which necessarily makes it a false pretence, within the meaning" of the Act of 1842. "But the false pretence contemplated by the law is the assertion of some fact, that is alleged to exist at the time, which, if true, would be entitled to credit; and from the fairness of its character is calculated to impose upon an individual exercising common prudence, foresight, and caution, not having the means of detection at hand. And this assertion, although false, is the ground upon which the credit is given." See also 2 Clark, 297.

1. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 1843, 2 Clark, 35.-The statute of 1842 requires that not only shall the pretence be false, but that it should have been successfully used "with intent to cheat or defraud."

2. It is not fraud to induce a man to pay a debt justly due, by false pretence. 1. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 1843.-The Act of 1842 touching conspiracy, was a consolidation of 33 Hen. VIII., ch. 1, of the 30 Geo. II., ch. 24 (neither ever in force in Pennsylvania), and 8 Geo. IV., ch. 29, sec. 53. "Broad, however, as is the phrase, 'any false pretence whatever,' it still has a legal limit beyond which it cannot be carried." "It extends no farther than to a case where a party has obtained money or property by falsely representing himself to be in a situation in which he was not, or any occurrence which has not happened, to which persons of ordinary caution might give credit."

2. Every false promise or assertion made by a party with the view of fraudulently obtaining the property of another, is not of course a false pretence within the Act of 1842; but that the false pretences in the contemplation of the statute are such as assert the existence of some fact calculated to impose upon a man of common and ordinary caution, which false pretence creates the credit given the accused.

Commonwealth v. Burdick, 2 Barr, 163.-Goods obtained by false assertion, of money already in possession, and more to come in the next month, by reason of which credit was given, is false pretence under Act of July 12, 1842.

Daniels v. Commonwealth, 1847, 7 Barr, 372-376.-The court below sentenced Daniels to a fine and imprisonment in the county prison at hard labor, under Act 12 July, 1842.

ROGERS, J.-To the punishment awarded by the act there is superadded, in the sentence, "hard labor."

The punishment only which the statute awards can be inflicted, the court having no power to alter or vary.

Under the Act of 16 June, 1836, this court may modify the sentence by striking from the sentence “hard labor," which is accordingly done, the sentence affirmed in all other respects.

Commonwealth v. Erastus Poulson, 1847, 4 Clark, 20.-Defendant obtained credit on his statement that he had a clear capital of $2000. This being untrue: Held, That he was guilty of false pretence under the Act of 1842.

Many cases considered and compared.

1. Commonwealth v. M. Woodrun, 4 Clark, 207.—“A fraud to be indictable at common law, must be such as affects the public, or is calculated to defraud numbers, and which ordinary care and caution cannot guard against; as if a man use false weights and measures, and sells by them to his customers, in the general course of his dealing; or defrauds another under false tokens; or if there is a conspiracy to cheat; for common care and prudence are no protection against these."

2. "In order to render a cheat or fraud indictable at common law, on the ground that it was effected by means of a false token, the token must be such as indicates a general intent to defraud, and, therefore, is an injury to the public. A mere privy token, or counterfeit letters in other men's names, seem not to come within the meaning of the term false token, as used at common law."

3. "In all legislation against obtaining property by false tokens, or cheats, the obtaining real estate thereby has never been made the subject of criminal charge and punishment."

Moore v. Commonwealth, 1848, 8 Barr, 264.-Plaintiff in error paid an old debt with a genuine note on a broken bank, and was indicted and convicted of false pretence. Held, Not to be false pretence; it was a fruitless attempt to pay and discharge an old account.

Judgment reversed.

1. Commonwealth v. Henry, 1853, 10 Harris, 255.-This was an indictment under the Act July 12, 1842, for obtaining money under false pretences.

2. "It has been held under the English statutes, that if a man fraudulently represent, as an existing fact, that which is not an existing fact, and so gets money, that is a false pretence," and our own should be so construed.

3. "A false representation by which a man may be cheated into performance of a duty is not within the statute."

4. "The ingredients of the offence are the obtaining money by false pretences and with intent to defraud."

5. The facts in this case were: The "defendant, by himself, and through one Canfield, falsely and fraudulently represented to Smith, that he had a warrant issued by competent authority, for the arrest of his daughter Esther, for a public offence, punishable by fine and imprisonment, and by reason of such representation, obtained from said Smith goods and moneys to the value of one hundred dollars." Held, To be within the statute, and false pretence.

Commonwealth v. Adley, 1854, 1 Pearson, 62.—“ Upon a charge of false pretence the indictment must recite the matters stated by the defendants, deny their truth, and aver that they were known to be false by the defendant. It must also state whether the money was obtained as a loan, gift, or otherwise, and that the false statement was made for the purpose of obtaining it."

1. Commonwealth v. Frey, 1865, 14 Wright, 249.-" A motion to quash must be decided before the jury is sworn and not afterwards; and if the court refuse to quash, they cannot quash it after the jury is sworn. Their power to do so is then ended."

2. "The indictment should show what the false pretences were."

Commonwealth ex rel. T. J. Wolfe v. Keeper of County Prison, 1865, 6 Phila. R., 78.-The false representations on which goods are obtained must relate to the present condition of the maker. The goods must be delivered on the faith of such representation.

1. Commonwealth v. Alsop and Waters, 1867, 6 Phila. R., 371.-What the Commonwealth must prove on an indictment for false pretence.

2. The rules governing criminal courts on motions for new trial.

3. The statute of limitations of March 31, 1860, does not require sentence to be passed within two years.

4. A defendant can demand a trial, and the Commonwealth cannot continue without cause indefinitely.

Commonwealth v. Robert Alsop and Jonathan H. Waters, 1867, 1 Brewster's R., 328.-"A false brief, a false deed, a false plan, false representations, whereby large amounts of money are obtained, would seem to be within the meaning of the law, although they may all have reference to real estate."

...

Commonwealth v. David France, 2 Brewster's R., 568.-"The statute of 1 Henry V., cap. v., directs 'That in every original writ, . . . and indictments, . . . additions shall be made of their estate, or degree or mystery; and if . . . . the said addition be omitted. . . . that they be void,'" etc. And this is in force in Pennsylvania: Roberts's Digest, xxi.

In this case the statute has not been complied with.

....

The description of the property is in the disjunctive-"twenty-four or twentyfive steers or head of cattle." This is irregular.

The word yeoman was omitted.

Demurrer sustained.

1. Commonwealth ex rel. Osborn W. Whittaker v. The Sheriff, 1869, September 18th, 3 Brewster's R., 394.+"The crime was committed in February, 1865. First process issued in August, 1869. Act of March 31, 1860, fixes two years as the limitation within which, 'the indictment must be brought or exhibited.' Up to the present time no indictment has been found, and there must be a discharge.” 2. Concealment of the crime will not bar the running of the statute, the defendant continuing in the State.

ED. NOTE.-See Commonwealth v. Ruffner, 4 Casey, 260; Commonwealth v. Hass, 7 P. F. Smith, 443; and Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 2 Parsons, 453, the latter how far affected by the above decisions? See also Commonwealth v. Alsop, 1 Brewster, 343.

Commonwealth v. Collins, 1871, 8 Phila. R., 609.-It is a false pretence to pass a check on a bank in which no account is kept by the drawer.

Commonwealth v. Barker, 1871, 8 Phila. R., 613.-A mere naked lie is not false

pretence.

Commonwealth v. Benjamin K. Fisher, 9 Phila. R., 594.—What is a false pre

tence.

Commonwealth v. Kressler et al., 1878, 12 Phila. R., 628.-Defendants were indicted and tried for false pretence and conspiracy; after trial and verdict de

fendants moved in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, that one count charged that the property was alleged to be the property of George R. Kressler, and the other count that it was the property of George R. and Ellwood Kressler, while the testimony was that it was alleged to be the property of Ellwood. Held, That the objection should have been taken before the jury was sworn or on the trial, and not after the verdict.

Motion for new trial overruled.

Commonwealth v. Haines et al., 1881, 38 vol. Legal Int., 1881, p. 185.—" Bill of exceptions in criminal cases: practice."

Commonwealth v. Herman, 1881, 38 vol. Legal Int., p. 260.—“ A married woman cannot be convicted of false pretence when she informed the prosecutor at the time of the alleged representation that she was a married woman."

1. Commonwealth v. Moore, 1882, 39 vol. Legal. Int., 1882, p. 306.—“The failure to use a note which has been indorsed to take the place of another then expiring, although a dishonest act, is not punishable under the law of false pretences.

2. "Where, upon an indictment for false pretences, a case is not made out, a conviction cannot be had on the same indictment for constructive larceny, where the counts in the same would not sustain such a charge."

ED. NOTE.-Section 111, Act of 31 March, 1860, P. L., 410, provides that one indicted for false pretence shall not be acquitted if the facts proved show larceny, and a conviction shall be a bar to a prosecution for larceny on another bill.

1. Commonwealth v. Garver, 1883, 40 vol. Leg. Intel., 210.-"On the trial of an indictment for obtaining money or chattels by false pretence, a variance between the indictment and the evidence in respect to the pretence used is fatal. The specific pretence charged in the indictment must be proved to have been made, for, otherwise, a slight change in the description of the false pretence charged may place the defendant at a disadvantage when, prepared to meet one charge, he is, without notice, confronted with another.

2. "Where a defendant was charged in an indictment with having falsely pretended that a certain draft was a good and valuable draft, and that he had funds in the National Bank of Wooster, Ohio, to pay it, but the evidence only proved him to have said that there was money in the hands of defendant's partner, who lived in Wooster, Ohio, to pay the draft, and that it was a good draft. Held, That the variance between the indictment and the proof was fatal, and, after conviction upon the charge, the defendant may have a new trial."

XIV. DEFRAUDING AND CHEATING BOARDING-HOUSE AND INNKEEPERS, ETC., BY FALSE SHOW OF BAGGAGE OR OTHER MISREPRESENTATIONS.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 112, P. L., 410.-If any person, with intent to cheat or defraud, shall, by any false or fraudulent representations, or by any false show of baggage, goods or chattels, which are calculated to deceive any hotel, inn or boarding-house. keeper, obtain lodging and credit in any hotel, inn or boardinghouse, and shall subsequently refuse to pay for his board and

« AnteriorContinuar »