Volume IX. 1846. V. no reference to the rateability inter se of the several occupiers in the same parish: it regulates only the proThe QUEEN portion in which the different parishes are to contribute to the county rate. The general principle of leaving the proportion of the parish to be raised out of the poor rate is left untouched. The act (s. 12.) incorporates stat. The Inhabit ants of AYLESBURY WITH WALTON. and 2, con Stat. 8 & 9 12 G. 2. c. 29. and stat. 13 G. 2. c. 18. s. 7. so far as Secondly, the county rate is properly a parochial tax. The rate, as has been shewn, is raised only by means, and from the produce, of a poor rate, which is admitted to be a parochial tax. (He was stopped by the Court.) 1846. The QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of AYLESBURY WITH WALTON. Lord DENMAN C. J. The poor rate is the fund Queen's Bench. which raises, in the different parishes, the county rate. We must therefore hold that the mode in which this property is to contribute to the county rate, such contribution being made through the poor rate, is to be calculated on the principle laid down in sect. 19 of stat. 34 G. 3. c. 24. Possibly, if the words of stat. 54 G. 3. c. ciii. s. 1. were taken by themselves, they might appear sufficiently general to authorise the overseers to assess on the ordinary principle. But the object of that act clearly was only to secure a proportional contribution from the different parishes: it does not interfere with the mode in which particular individuals are rated in the several parishes; that is left to the principle of estimation prevailing within the parish. Then, as to the other point, a case (a) has been referred to, in which this Court held that, where lands were liable ratione tenure to repair a bridge, and statutes, reciting that liability, enacted that, on default by the landowner, trustees created and empowered by one of the statutes should repair, and recover against the owners, the liability for such repair did not become a parliamentary tax, and therefore a tenant of the landowner, who had covenanted to pay the rent clear of parliamentary and parochial taxes, might recover from the landowner the cost of repairs done by the trustees in the landowner's default, and for which the tenant had been compelled to pay. But here the question is whether the county rate be not raised by a parochial tax, by virtue of the enactment which imposed it in the first instance: and we clearly must hold it to be so. (a) Baker v. Greenhill, 3 Q. B. 148. PATTESON J. Stat. 12 G. 2. c. 29. s. 2. directs that the county rate be paid out of the poor rate, with an exception (the reason of which I do not understand) as to eight counties in the north. Now, if the sum here in dispute is to be added to the assessment of the parish, all the parishioners will have to pay their share of such addition; it will not all come from the Company: nor do I see how it will be possible to get the whole of it from them, except by a special rate for the county rate alone; and for that I can find no authority. Sect. 12 of stat. 55 G. 3. c. 51. provides for compelling the overseers to levy the sum required for the county rate : and that clearly is to be done by including such sum in the poor rate. Sect. 13 (a) provides for the particular inconvenience which will arise in the case of places not liable to a separate poor rate; and the Buckinghamshire act, stat. 54 G. 3. c. ciii. s. 8., hás a similar provision. All this shews that there was no intention to depart in this respect from the principle of stat. 12. G. 2. c. 29., and that the county rate was still to be paid out of the poor rate. WILLIAMS J. It seems to me that sect. 12 of stat. 55 G. 3. c. 51. is referable to the mode of raising the money under the ordinary power of the overseer to levy an equal rate on all property rateable to the relief of the poor, and that no new mode of assessment for the county rate, per se, was contemplated. Stat. 12 G. 2. c. 29. s. 2. expressly provides that the contribution to the county rate is to come out of the poor rate. (a) Referring to sects, 7, 8. Rate reduced. The first count charged that he, contriving and in- 29. s. 53., tending to cheat and defraud one James Wood, Esquire, of his moneys, on the 27th day of March in &c. (8 Victoria), with force &c., at the parish &c., and within the jurisdiction &c., unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, did falsely pretend to the said J. Wood &c. A false pretence, and an obtaining of money thereby, were then charged. 2nd count. That the said A. R. Hamilton, contriving and intending to cheat and defraud the said James Wood, to wit on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish &c., and within the jurisdiction &c., unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, did falsely pretend to the said J. Wood that he, the said A. R. Hamilton, then was a captain in her Majesty's 5th regiment of Dragoon charged that defendant, con triving and in tending to cheat W., on a day named, unlawfully, knowingly &c., did falsely pre tend to W. that then was a cap he, defendant, tain in Her Majesty's 5th regiment of Dragoons, by means of which false pretence defendant did, then and there, unlawfully, obtain of W. a valuable se curity, to wit an order for the payment of 500, of the value of 5001., whereas in truth the property of W., with intent then and there to cheat W. of the same: defendant was not, at the time of making such false pretence, a captain &c., and defendant, at the time of making such false pretence, well knew that he was not a captain &c. Held a good indictment, on error after conviction and judgment. For that It was not necessary to allege more precisely that defendant made the particular pretence with the intent of obtaining the security: Nor how the particular pretence was calculated to effect, or had effected, the obtaining: And the truth of the pretence was well negatived, it appearing sufficiently that the pretence was that the defendant was a captain &c. at the time of his making such pretence, which was the fact denied. And it was unnecessary to aver expressly that the security was unsatisfied, at any rate since stat. 7 G. 4. c. 64. s. 21., the objection being taken after verdict, and the indictment following the words of the statute creating the offence. Volume 1X. 1846. HAMILTON V. Guards: by means of which said last mentioned false pretence the said A. R. Hamilton did then and there, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, obtain, of and from The QUEEN. the said J. Wood, a certain valuable security, to wit an order for the payment of the sum of 500l. of lawful money &c., and of the value of 500l., the property of the said J. Wood, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud him, the said J. Wood, of the same: whereas, in truth and in fact, the said A. R. Hamilton was not, at the time of making such last mentioned false pretence as aforesaid, a captain in her said Majesty's said regiment; and the said A. R. Hamilton, at the time of making such last mentioned false pretence as aforesaid, well knew that he was not a captain in her said Majesty's said regiment. To the great damage &c., to the evil example &c., against the peace &c., and against the form of the statute in such case &c. On the trial, at the October Sessions, 1845, the defendant was acquitted on the first count, and found Guilty on the second: and he was sentenced to be transported for seven years. Error on the judgment was brought in this Court. Ballantine, for the plaintiff in error. First, the second count is bad for not shewing that the alleged false pretence was made with intent to obtain the security. Sect. 53 of stat. 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 29. enacts "that if any person shall by any false pretence obtain from any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." Stat. 30 G. 2. c. 24. s. 1. was, in this respect, similar. It might well happen that |