to cheat and defraud C did unlawfully, knowingly and designedly falsely pretend that W did send him (the defendant) to C after the sum of five dollars in money, whereas in truth and in fact the said W did not send .him * * after the said sum of five dollars; by means of which false pretence he (the defendant) knowingly and designedly did, unlawfully and with intent to defraud, obtain from C" five dollars, sufficiently charges the crime of false pretence. Dixon, 101-741.

No averment of the value of the property obtained is necessary. Gillespie, 80-396.

An indictment charging that defendant represented a horse which he traded to the prosecutor "to be all right, whereas in truth and in fact he was not all right, but diseased to such an extent as to render him worthless," without averring in what manner he was not all right, is too vague and indefinite, and judgment should be arrested. Lambeth, 80-393. An indictment which charges that defendant in swapping horses stated that his horse was sound, knowing that he was not sound, and that the prosecutor was induced thereby to trade, is sufficient. Mangum, 116-998. Failure to use the word "feloniously" in the bill is fatal. Wilson, 116 -979.

An indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences is fatally defective if the word "feloniously" is omitted. Bryan, 112-848. Caldwell, 112-854.

WHAT CONSTITUTES FALSE PRETENCE.-Defendant sold the prosecutor four barrels of crude turpentine, representing "that they were all right, just as good at bottom as they were at top," but when examined the barrels contained only a small quantity of turpentine on the top of each, the rest of the contents being chips and dirt: Held, that defendant was guilty of false pretences, and that the rule of caveat emptor did not apply. Jones 70-75.

A false representation that a mule "was sound, would work well aud would not kick," made in connection with a proposition to sell the mule for a price, and made knowingly with intent to cheat and defraud, and by means of which the prosecutor was defrauded of his money, constitutes a false pretence within the meaning of the statute. Burke, 108-750.

An indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences can be maintained against one who sells land for a price by falsely representing it to be free from incumbrances and the title perfect, when the land is in fact encumbered with a mortgage known to defendant. It is not land that is obtained by the false pretence, but money, the price of the land. Distinguishing State v. Burrows, 11 Ired., 477. Munday, 78-460.

A false representation of a subsisting fact, calculated to deceive, intended to deceive, and which does deceive, whether the representation be in writing, or in words, or in acts, by which one man obtains value from another without compensation, is a false pretence and indictable. Phifer, 65-321.

Obtaining burial clothes by falsely pretending that they were needed to bury a sister-in-law's child who has just died, is a false pretence within the statute, and it matters not whether the owner parted with his goods for gain or for a charitable purpose. Matthews, 91-635.

If a person by his acts or conduct induces another to believe that a fact is really in existence, when it is not, and thereby obtains money or property, he comes within the scope of the statute against false pretences. Matthews, 121-604.

To constitute this offence there must be a false representation of a subsisting fact intending to cheat and which does cheat. Mangum, 116—

To be indictable the false pretence must be of some existing fact in contradistinction from a mere promise or opinion; therefore, where defendant obtained a bottle of medicine from another by false representations that it was too strong to be applied on the face of such other he can not be held guilty of obtaining goods under false pretences. Daniel, 114-823.

The statute requires that the cheat should be accomplished by means of some token or contrivance calculated to impose on the credulity of ordinary men. Simpson, 10 (3 Hawks), 620.

The gist of this offence is the obtaining advances with the intent, existing at the time, not to commence work. Evidence merely of an agreement to work, the obtaining advances thereon, and the failure to comply, would not warrant a verdict of guilty. Norman, 110-484.

A statement upon which property is obtained, to come within the meaning of false pretence, must be false within the knowledge of the party making it, calculated and intended to deceive, and which did deceive, the person from whom the property was taken, and upon which such person reasonably relied at the time of the taking. Moore, 111-667.

There was evidence that the defendant obtained money from the deceased husband of the witness to get an electropoise which defendant, claiming to be an agent therefor, had agreed to sell to the husband, and which defendant claimed to be in the express office, when there was in fact no electropoise in such office, and defendant kept the money so obtained: Held, that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury. Matthews, 121-604.

WHAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE OFFENCE.-It is not sufficient that the false representation was made after the property was obtained. Moore, 111-667.

A false representation that certain cotton is of the grale of "good middling" is not indictable, since the rule of caveat emptor applies. Young, 76--258.

The state's witness testified that "he went to the defendant and told him he understood defendant was an agent for one F, who would furnish good and lawful money to any one at the rate of $10 for each $1 invested, and that he after wards, on the same day, made a bargain with defendant that upon the payment of $21.50 the said K (defendant) was to procure for him from said F the sum of $150; that defendant K told him he had furnished money at these rates for O. H. & Co.," and others. Witness further testified that said money had not been received by him: Held, that defendant was not guilty, since there was only a promise to be performed in the future, and not a false representation of a subsisting fact. Knott, 124.

On July 12, 1897, defendant certified in writing that he had received of F "twenty-four dollars in merchandise, the amount of my check for the quarter ending October 30, 1897, which check I hereby pledge in payment of same." He failed to apply the check or its proceeds: Hell, that defendant was not guilty, since the fact that defendant did not have, and could not have, the check for the quarter from August 1st to October 30th was plain on the face of the writing, and was, or ought to have been known to the prosecutor. Whidbee, 124-.

If the prosecutor, knowing his note is in other hands than the payee's, pays him the money due, trusting him to make the application, he is not induced to part with it by any false pretense. Mcore, 111-667.

FALSELY REPRESENTING A DEAD PAUPER AS ON THE POOR LIST.-Where it is proven that defendant falsely represented that a pauper placed on the "poor list" was a resident of the courty, whereas in truth she was d ad, each application for an order for her support made after her death, knowing she was dead, is evidence to be considered by the jury in deter

mining defendant's intent, notwithstanding there is no evidence of fraud at the time the pauper was put on the "poor list." Wilkerson, 98-696. CHARGE.-Defendant represented that a horse he was about to sell was sound and not lame, and upon the buyer's remarking that the horse limped, accounted for it as the result of a recent shoeing. It was shown that he knew the horse had a disease of long standing called the "sweeney," which was not perceptible, and that the lameness did not usually occur until after about three days' driving: Held, that it was proper to refuse to charge that the mere fact that the prosecutor perceived the lameness at the time of the trade entitled defendant to a verdict of not guilty. Wilkerson, 103-337.

Defendant was charged with obtaining goods by falsely representing that he owned a certain cow, which he mortgaged to the prosecutor, and afterwards refused to surrender, alleging it to be the property of his wife. It was in evidence that the wife sold the cow to a witness, but retained possession, and the witness told her that she might keep it by repaying the price; said witness in a subsequent transaction with the de en dant husband received payment for the cow out of the husband's own funds, and surrendered an unregistered bill of sale, which was destroyed by defendant, who thereafter exercised control over the property. The court charged that the mortgage conveyed the legal title in the property to the prosecutor, who had the right to call for possession be ore the same was due, and that the transaction between the witness and defendant had the effect of putting the title back in the wife, and that defendant acquired no title thereby: Held, that such charge was not warranted by the evidence. Alphin, 84-745.

The omission to direct the attention of the jury to the fraudulent intent of the defendant as a necessary ingredient of the crime is error. Austin, 79-624.

Where the indictment alleges that defendant obtained money from the prosecutor on the representation that he owned certain bonds which were deposited with a third party, an instruction that the burden of proof is on defendant to produce the bonds or account for their absence to the satisfaction of the jury, is erroneous. Criticising State v. Morrison, 3 Dev.,

299. Wilbourn, 87-529.

VARIANCE. Where the indictment alleges a cheating in an executed contract, and the proof establishes an attempt to cheat in an executory contract which was abandoned before its consummation, the var ance is fatal. Corbett, 46 (1 Jones), 264.

Where witnesses of the state testify to facts in accordance with the charge in the bill, it is no var ance because a witness for defendant testifies to facts, which if believed, would make a variance. Mikle, 94-843. EVIDENCE OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OF FRAUD.-Evidence that defendant had been guilty of another specific act of fraud wholly collateral to the issue before the jury can not be given by a witness called to support or impeach the character of defendant. Bullard, 100-486.

EVIDENCE OF THE LAW IN ANOTHER STATE.-The printed statute book of another state is not evidence to show what the law of that state is; it can only be shown by a copy authenticated by the seal of the state which enacted it. Twitty, 9 (2 Hawks), 441.

DEFECTIVE DESCRIPTION IN MORTGAGE.-A defective description in a mortgage of unplanted crops can not be aided by parol testimony. Garris, 98-733.

DEFENDANT MAY SHOW THAT HE WAS ONLY A SURETY ON BOND.-A person charged with obtaining goods under false pretences may show that he was only a surety in the transaction, and executed the bord and mortgage with the principal with the understanding that the mortgage conveyed

only their joint property, though in its terms it conveys his individual property. The essence of the crime of false pretences being the intent to deceive and defraud, much latitude must be allowed in the reception of evidence bearing on this issue. Garris, 98-733.

PAROL EVIDENCE OF CONTENTS OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENT.-The rule that parol evidence of the contents of written instruments is not admissible until the loss of the instrument is proven or accounted for, does not apply to cases where the writing comes up on a collateral inquiry, and a party is not expected to be prepared to produce it, or where its possession is traced to the adverse party and he refuses to produce it. Wilkerson, 98-696.

EVIDENCE. On indictment for obtaining money under false pretences by inducing the county treasurer to cash an order represented by the defendant as being genuine, evidence offered by defendant as to the stub. book kept by him in the register of deeds' office, which he claimed would show that the order was issued for a bill of stationery, was inadmissible because irrelevant and not corroborative of the evidence as to defendant's intent or tending to show that his representation as to the genuineness of the order was true. Walton, 114-783.

OTHER OFFENCES.-In order to show the scienter it is competent to prove other similar transactions by the defendant. Walton, 114-783.

CHARGE "MONEY," PROOF "Goods."-The Code, section 957, authorizing such judgment as the record justifies, refers only to such matters as are necessarily of the record, as the pleadings, verdict and judgment, hence, where there are no exceptions on the trial, the fact that the indictment charged the defendant with obtaining "money" under false pretences, while the proof was that he obtained "goods," is not ground for reversal by the supreme court. Ashford, 120-588.

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.-The fact that the prosecutor was foreman of the grand jury and endorsed the bill of indictment, is not sufficient ground to support a motion in arrest of judgment. Cannor, 90-711.

A motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment alleged that the order for the support of the pauper was falsely obtained from the board of county commissioners, and that the county, not the board of commissioners, is the "person or corporation," can not be sustained, since the board is the county agent, and the county sues, or is sued, in their name. Wilkerson, 98-696.

Such county warrant is but evidence of a debt, and may be recalled. Ib. SPECIAL VERDICT.-A special verdict which finds that the representation was false, but which fails to find the intent with which the statement was made, is fatally defective. Blue, 84-807.

A special verdict which fails to find whether defendant had the intent to defraud is defective. Oakley, 103-408.

VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL BY FRAUD.-A verdict of acquittal on an indictment for a misdemeanor procured by the trick or fraud of the defendant is a nullity, and the defendant can again be put on trial for the same offence. Swepson, 79-632.

MOTION TO QUASH.-It is error to quash an indictment charging that defendant "unlawfully and knowingly devising and intending to cheat and defraud, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend to J. W. M. that a certain mule which he, the said J. M. B., proposed to trade to the said J. W. M., was sound and worked well and would not kick, whereas in truth and fact, mule was not sound, would not work well and would kick," etc. The false representations as to the qualities of the mule amount to something more than mere "tricks of trade," bluster and puffs, and the omission of the word "said" before the word "mule" is not fatal, as it is obviously implied from the connection. Burke, 108

Sec. 152 (1026). False pretence; obtaining signature by. 1871-'2, c. 92 Every person who, with intent to defraud or cheat another, shall designedly, by color of any false token or writing, or by any other false pretence, obtain the signature of any person or persons to any written instrument, the false making of which would be punishable as forgery, or obtain from any person or persons any money, goods, wares, merchandise or other property or valuable thing whatsoever, shall be punishable by fine not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than one year nor more than five years, or both, at the discretion of the' court.

Sec. 153 (1027). False pretence; obtaining advances upon representation of ownership of property, and promising to apply the same to payment of the debt, and failing to do so. 1879, chapters 185, 186.

If any person shall obtain any advances in money, provisions, goods, wares or merchandise of any description, from any other person or corporation, upon any written representation that the 'person making the same is the owner of any article of produce, or of any other specific chattel, or personal property, which said property, or the proceeds of which, the said owner in said representation thereby agrees to apply to the discharge of the debt so created as aforesaid, and the said owner shall fail to apply said produce or other property, or the proceeds thereof, in accordance with said agreement, or shall dispose of the same in any other manner than is so agreed upon by the parties to the transaction, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, whether he shall or shall not have been the owner of any such property at the time such representation was made. This offence shall be punishable as in the preceding section.

Sec. 154. Advances obtained by false pretences. 1889, c. 444, 1891, c. 106.

If any person, with intent to cheat or defraud another, shall obtain any advances in money, provisions, goods, wares or merchandise of any description, from any other person or corporation upon or by color of any promise or agreement, that the person making the same will commence or begin any work or labor of any description for said person or corporation from whom said advances are obtained, and said person so making said promise or agreement shall unlawfully and willfully fail to commence and complete said work according to contract, without a lawful cause, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days.