and shall be liable to imprisonment in any common gaol or prison, with or without hard labor, for any period not exceeding six months." (Ib. s. 74.)

"In any indictment for obtaining or attempting to obtain any property by false pretences, with intent to defraud, it shall be sufficient to state that the property was obtained, or attempted to be obtained, by the defendant by false pretences, with intent to defraud, without any further or more particular statement of such false pretences." (Ib. c. 99, s. 35.)

PERSONS INDICTED FOR LARCENY MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF OBTAINING UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.-" If upon the trial of any person for larceny it appears that the property taken was obtained by such person by fraud, under circumstances which do not amount to such taking as constitutes larceny, such person shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted, but the jury may return as their verdict that such person is not guilty of larceny, but is guilty of obtaining such property under false pretences, with the intent to defraud, if the evidence prove such to have been the case, and thereupon such person shall be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for obtaining property under false pretences; and no person so tried for larceny as aforesaid shall be afterwards prosecuted for obtaining property by false pretences upon the same facts." (Ib. s. 61.)

ON AN INDICTMENT FOR OBTAINING MONEY, &c., BY FALSE PRETENCES, IF A LARCENY BE PROVED, THE PARTY MAY BE CONVICTED OF LARCENY." If upon the trial of any person indicted for obtaining any chattel, money, or valuable security by any false pretence, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, it be 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 such indictment shall be removeable by certiorari; and no person tried for such misdemeanor shall be afterwards prosecuted for larceny upon the same facts." (Ib. s. 62.)

"In case of the conviction of any person for cheating or fraud, the person convicted of any such offence may be sentenced to be imprisoned only, or imprisoned and kept at hard labor, or in solitary confinement, in the common gaol or house of correction, for any period less than two years, or may be imprisoned at hard labor in the Penitentiary for any term not less than two and not exceeding seven years." (Con. Stat. U. C. c. 115, s. 1.)

This branch of the law is involved in some obscurity. The decisions of the superior courts as to the extent of its application, and the offences which come within the reach of the criminal law, or are merely the subject of civil redress, are perplexing, if not contradictory, and are, as observed by Creswell, J., well calculated to embarrass those who are called upon to administer the law. The difficulty arises from the nice distinction which has been drawn between a false pretence and a naked lie, not cognizable in a criminal court, and from the latitude allowed to traders, by the almost universal practice of every country, in stating or overstating the merits, or understating or concealing the faults of the commodities which are the subject matter of their dealings.

The false pretence must (as defined by Archbold) be a statement "of some pretended existing fact, and be made for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to part with his property;" for instance, a promise to pay for goods on delivery is not a false pretence, but representing that another person had sent for them is. In prosecutions for obtaining money or goods by false pretences, it must be shewn that the prosecutor parted with his property by reason of the false pretences. Thus it was held, also, that where the prisoner represented to his master that he had done more work for him than was the fact, and was paid for the work he professed to have done, the master knowing at the time the amount of work done, an indictment under the statute could not be maintained, and the conviction was quashed. The attempt to obtain money by a false pretence is also a misdemeanor. And in another case a conviction was affirmed for attempting to obtain money from a pawnbroker, by asking him to advance money on a chain which he repre

sented to be of silver, but which the prisoner knew to be of other metal of inferior value. It is not necessary that the false pretence should be in words; and, therefore, it has been held, that where a party gave a cheque on a banker with whom he had no account, or obtained goods and money for a forged note of hand, or assumed the gown and cap of a commoner of the University of Oxford, and obtained money or goods by means of the fraud, the offence was within the statute. The offence may also be committed by means of an innocent agent. The law of false pretences underwent an elaborate discussion in the case of R. v. Bryan, (26 L. J. 84); and the court attempted to define where the line of commercial license and of simply lax mercantile morality ends, and that of fraudulent misrepresentation and of criminal responsibility begins. The result would appear to be that the statute must not be considered as applying to mere exaggeration or depreciation as to the quality of an article in the ordinary course of dealing during the progress of a bargain, but that it extends to cases where the substance of the contract is falsely represented; as, for instance, that a ring is of silver, cheese of a particular quality, or blacking of a particular person's manufacture, and the money is obtained by reason of such false pretence. The test appears to be whether the person charged falsely represented a positive fact, or said what merely amounted to an opinion.

It will be impossible to refer to all the decisions which have taken place; but we have thought it would be useful to give a brief summary of some of the principal cases, distinguishing those which have been held to be within the statute of 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 29, or otherwise, as the principle of these will be applicable to questions arising under the Consolidated Statutes.

OFFENCES WITHIN THE STATUTE.-Where a carrier falsely pretended that he had carried certain goods, and obtained money for their carriage; or a foreman pretended to his master to have paid money to the workmen which he had not paid; or a servant who had authority from his employers to pay money on their behalf falsely pretended to have paid a certain

sum, and obtained it from the clerk; or a secretary of a friendly society who obtained money from one of the members, falsely pretending that it was owing; or obtaining from the master a cheque for £14 2s. 6d., the amount appearing to be due from the master to his workmen, according to an account rendered to him by the prisoner, and all of which was due except seven shillings, which the prisoner kept; or the member of an enrolled benefit society obtaining the property of E. and others, by falsely pretending to E., the steward, who kept the money, that his wife was dead; or offering a flash note in payment under the pretence that it was a bank note; or falsely representing that the prisoner kept a shop, and that the prosecutrix might go and live with her there until she got a situation, and thereby obtaining from the prosecutrix ten shillings, advanced on the faith of such representation; or a person obtaining a charitable gift by means of a begging letter, containing a tale of fictitious distress; or obtaining money by way of a loan by means of a false pretence; or falsely pretending that the blacking sold by the prisoner was that of a particular maker, Everett's blacking; or that the horses sold by the prisoner had been the property of a deceased lady, and were then the property of her sister, and had never belonged to a horse dealer; or that the party is connected in business with a person of wealth; or fraudulently misrepresenting the weight of a load of coals delivered under a contract as 18 cwt., knowing the weight to be 14 cwt. only; or that the loaves delivered to the poor under a contract with the guardians of the parish were of full weight; or that an Irish one pound note was a five pound note; or that the prisoner had built a house on certain land, and thereby inducing the prosecutor to advance money on a deposit of the lease; or falsely pretending that the prisoner had purchased certain skins of A. B. and would sell them to the prosecutrix if she would let him have a certain sum, thereby inducing the prosecutrix to lend money to the prisoner; or passing a note of a country bank as a current note, knowing that the bank is insolvent and has stopped payment; were all held to be indictable offences under the statute.

OFFENCES NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE.-Falsely pretending that a party will pay for goods on delivery; or obtaining half a guinea's worth of silver, and stating that the half guinea would be sent presently; or falsely warranting a horse; or that the prisoner was a naval officer, and thereby inducing the prosecutor to enter into a contract to lodge and board him at a guinea per week (the supply of the articles of food being considered as too remotely the result of the false pretence); or that certain silver-plated spoons had as much silver in them as "Elkington's A.," and that the foundation was of the best material; or making a false representation as to the nature and profits of a business to induce a party to enter into partnership, the whole scheme not being a mere sham; or a servant by a false pretence inducing his master to give him a cheque as agent of a creditor of the master, with a view to its being handed over to that creditor, and the servant appropriating the cheque to his own use; were held not to be false pretences within the meaning of the statute.

CLAIM OF RIGHT.

A bona fide claim of right rebuts the presumption of felonious intention, though it may turn out to be groundless. But the claim must have a colour of right and not be set up against a known law, as a claim to graze on the lands of another against his will, or to plunder a wreck; for these will not be excused merely because custom has appeared to sanction such usages.

In general, however, a wrongful taking of property against the will of the owner must be considered felonious, unless shewn by circumstances to be otherwise. But the question of intent is to be gathered from circumstances, on which the jury are to decide, of which the most important is the pressure or absence of concealment at the time of and subsequent to the taking.

COCK FIGHTING.

This offence may be punished as cruelty to animals, under Con. Stat. C. c. 96 (see article "Cruelty to Animals," post); and