It is no defence to a charge of obtaining by false pretences that at the time of falsely pretending and obtaining, defendant intended (as the jury found) to pay the price when it should be in his power to do so. Naylor, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 4; 35 L. J. M. C. 61; 31 L. T. 381; 10 Cox C. C. 421, 1865.

Function of the jury] Appellant took his cart (worth 21.) to T. to be mended; he then borrowed a cart (worth 57.) belonging to T. from a man who was keeping it, representing and perhaps believing that he had T.'s authority. He then attempted to sell it. The conviction for obtaining the cart was upheld. The jury had to decide whether, when he obtained it, he did so with intent to defraud. It was not enough for him to intend to deprive the owner of its use, he must have intended to deprive him of it altogether and have meant to sell it': Crook, 4 Cr. A. R. 60, 1910.

Ownership of the property] This should be proved as laid, but in a proper case amendment would be allowed. Where the false pretence secured money from a servant paid on behalf of his mistress, it was objected, that at the time of payment this was not her money. L. Ellenborough said, that her subsequent repaying it did not make the money paid her money at the time. She was not chargeable for more than was actually due (for carriage), and it depended on her whether she should pay the overcharge. The servant, however, afterwards swore that, at the time of this transaction he had in his hands upwards of the whole sum charged belonging to her, which L. Ellenborough considered sufficient to sustain the averment. Douglass, 1 Camp. 212, 1808; see Marsh, 1849, above.

A., B., and C. entered into partnership for the sale of lamps. It was afterwards agreed that A. should act as agent for the sale on commission, and that his expenses and commission should be paid from the partnership funds before the profits were divided. A. falsely pretended that he had received orders for 100 lamps, whereby he obtained from B. and C. 127. 108., which would be the amount of his commission. It was held that, inasmuch as his charges were to be payable out of the funds of the partnership, and would thus be a matter of account between him and his partners, his false statement was a misrepresentation respecting a partnership matter: c. q.: Evans, 32 L. J. M. O. 38; 9 Cox C. C. 238, 1862: C. C. R., where Pollock C.B. thought that the statute was not intended to apply to those who by fraudulent and knavish statements obtain money in the course of a real commercial transaction. For such a case amounting to larceny or embezzlement, provision is made by s. 40 (4) of the Larceny A. 1916.

Intervention of third party] Indictment for obtaining money from A. The false pretence was made to A., who told defendant to go to his wife for the money. A.'s wife gave the money to defendant, A. not being present. The court confirmed a conviction. Moseley, L. & C. 92; 31 L. J. M. C. 24; 5 L. T. 328; 9 Cox C. C. 492, 1861.

Innocent agent] In Garrett, D. & P. C. C. 232; 6 Cox C. C. 260; 17 J. P. 774, 1853, L. Campbell said, 'if a man employ a conscious or unconscious agent in this country he may be amenable to the laws of England, although at the time he was living beyond the jurisdiction.' Defendant sent a little boy to get J. B.'s wages. The boy innocently asked for them, and took them to defendant. The indictment charged 1. the obtaining the money from prosecutor by falsely pretending

to him that defendant had authority from J. B. to receive it; 2. obtaining money from prosecutor and the boy by falsely pretending to the boy that he had authority from J. B. to receive it. It was held that both these counts were bad; but Cockburn C.J. thought that a count, charging the obtaining from the prosecutor by falsely pretending to him that the boy had authority from J. B. to receive it, would have been good, because that in fact was the pretence by which the money was got. Butcher, 1 Bell C. C. 6; 28 L. J. M. C. 14; 8 Cox O. C. 77, 1858. Cf. Adams, 1812.

A joint defendant may be the agent: Seagrave, 4 Cr. A. R. 156, 1910.

Aiders, &c.-principals] See Young, 1789, and Moland, above. See, too, Kerrigan, L. & C. 383; 33 L. J. M. O. 71; 9 L. T. 843; 9 Cox C. C. 441, 1864.

Bounty-money] There can be no doubt that obtaining bountymoney fraudulently is within the general law relating to false pretences. See Jessup, 25 L. J. M. C. 54; 7 Cox C. C. 70, 1856: C. C. R.

Building societies, &c.] Obtaining the property of building societies or industrial societies by false pretences is punishable on (summary conviction or) indictment by 37-8 V. 42, 1; 56-7 V. 39, 64.

Direction] This must always be precise: A. W. Smith, 11 Cr. A. R. 81, 1915. When the pretence alleged was that defendant could take photographs, but the jury were made to consider whether he spoke of good and saleable photographs, c. q. J. Heath, 7 Cr. A. R. 247, 1912. So R. Sagar. Precision is especially desirable about the inducement: A. W. Smith, above; and it is as well to mention it even in the clearest case, though then it is not absolutely essential: Fryer, 1912. Many cases are noticed under Summing Up, e.g. G. Baker,. 1910; W. Johnson, 1910, joint defendants.

Documents] See Evidence, above, and Rosenson.

in

Venue] It was said before the Larceny A. 1916, 'The rules larceny cases do not apply to false pretences': 6 Encyc. L. E.. art. False Pretences, citing Stanbury and Leech, below. But that A. has abolished venue, for by S. 39 (1): A person charged with any offence against this Act may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended or is in custody as if the offence had been committed in that county or place; and for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial, or punishment of the offence, it shall be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.'

Defendant, residing in the county of M., wrote a begging letter to prosecutor, who resided in the same county, but which letter was posted by an accomplice, in the county of K. Prosecutor, according to the request in the letter, sent a post-office order to defendant at G., in K., which the accomplice having received, he delivered the proceeds to defendant in M. It was held that he was rightly tried in M. T. S. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551, 1850. By means of altering a draft, defendant cheated a bank in St. Petersburg, the London firm on whom the unaltered draft was drawn discovering the fraud in time. A conviction for attempting to obtain from the London bank was quashed, as even if the forged draft had been honoured he could

not have been convicted; so far from having any interest in the St. Petersburg firm getting the money in London, his interest was that the draft should not be presented. For his own act in St. Petersburg,' said Maule J., 'he is not responsible in London': Garrett, 1853. Defendant wrote and posted in the county of A. a letter containing a false pretence, which the prosecutor received in the borough of B. Prosecutor, in answer, posted a letter in B., containing money, which defendant received in A. It was held that, under 7 G. 4, 64, 12, the trial might be in the borough. Leech, 25 L. J. M. O. 77; 1 D. & P. C. C. 642; 7 Cox C. C. 100, 1856. See Holmes, 12 Q. B. D. 23; 53 L. J. M. C. 37; 15 Cox C. C. 343, 1883: C. C. R.: letter received in France: draft sent thence to England; Rogers, 1877. Where defendant was indicted for obtaining money by sending a false return of fees to the Treasury, posted in Northampton, where he swore the necessary affidavit, and received at Westminster, on which a minute was drawn up directing the money to be paid, and it was paid at Westminster, it was held that the venue was rightly laid in Northamptonshire. Cooke, 1 F. & F. 64, 1858.

Where defendant obtained sheep by false pretences in Middlesex, and a few days afterwards removed them into Essex, where he was apprehended, c. q. as Essex Q. S. had no jurisdiction to try the offence. Stanbury, L. & C. 128; 31 L. J. M. C. 88; 9 Cox C. C. 94, 1862. See Ellis, 1899, and Dawson, 1888.

T. S. Jones, above, was followed in Stoddart, 1909; there defendant's office in Middelburg received money, &c. for entries in a competition, the money prizes in which were sent to the winners from London. The false pretence, if made, was to induce the persons to part with money and send it to Middelburg. and when the postal orders

[of the competitors] were posted within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court for Middelburg the offence was complete': per C. C. A.

Restitution] See s. 45 of the Larceny A. 1916.

This offence in respect of obtaining goods or money is 'crime' within 34-5 V. 112, 20, and 8 E. 7, 59.

The offence, but not an attempt, is within the Vexatious Ind. A. Triable at Q. S.

FALSE RUMOURS, SPREADING.

See Trade Offences, and cf. p. 421.

Falsification of Accounts.

621

FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS.

By 38-9 V. 24, 1: 'If any clerk, officer, or servant, or any person employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer, or servant, shall wilfully and with intent to defraud, destroy, alter, mutilate, or falsify any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which belongs. to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or shall wilfully and with intent to defraud, make or concur in making any false entry in, or omit or alter, or concur in omitting or altering, any material particular from or in any such book, or any document, or account, then in every such case the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to be kept in penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven. years

By s. 3, this Act is to be read as one with 24-5 V. 96.

A rate-collector stated correctly accounts in his book showing a balance in hand' due from the overseers, but he could not produce the amount when called upon. Held, that as the words 'in hand' did not make the entry false he could not be indicted under this s. Williams,

19 Cox C. C. 239, 1899: C. C. R. There must be, under s. 1, an intent to defraud found by the jury. Where a conviction was obtained by a direction that falsification was criminal even if made merely to conceal repayments of money lent in the business without the employer's knowledge-which was the defence-it was quashed. Drewett, 69 J. P. 37; 21 T. L. R. 164, 1904: C. C. R.

Through innocent agent] A collector, accounting in due course for money received, wrote, S. on account, 51.,' and gave the memo. in to the entering clerk; he had received more: conviction affirmed. Butt, 15 Cox C. Č. 564; 49 J. P. 233; 51 L. T. 607, 1884: C. C. R.

An omission under s. 1 may be one not made by defendant himself but due in the ordinary course of book-keeping to his omission to communicate. Oliphant, 1905, 2 K. B. 67; 74 L. J. K. B. 591; 94 L. T. 824; 69 J. P. 230; 21 Cox C. C. 192; 21 T. L. R. 416: C. C. R.; but two judges doubted. The account, &c. falsified must be the master's, and in his possession, and not defendant's own. Palin, 1906, 1 K. B. 7; 76 L. J. K. B. 15; 69 J. P. 400: C. C. R. In Oliphant the omission to furnish accounts was made in Paris, the defective papers being forwarded to England and copied there into a book, but it was held, on the authority of Munton, 1 Esp. 62, 1793, that there was jurisdiction to try in London.

See this title under Forgery, and Credit in Account under False Pretences.

Indictment] A form will be found in the Appendix to the Ind. A. 1915, no. 25.

'Servant'] This relation depends on the contract in each case: A. Solomons, 1909.

Machine an account'] The figures on a taximeter may be an ' account.' Ib. Defendant signed the sheet made up from such automatic record.

Triable at Q. S.

་

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS.

Private Acts-journals, &c.] By 8-9 V. 113, 4: If any person shall print any copy of any private Act or of the journals of either house of parliament, which copy shall falsely purport to have been printed by the printers to the crown, or by the printers to either house of parliament [or under the superintendence or authority of her Majesty's stationery office, by 45-6 V. 9, 2, 3], or by any or either of them; or if any person shall tender in evidence any such copy, knowing that the same was not printed by the person or persons by whom it so purports to have been printed, every such person shall be guilty of felony, and shall, upon conviction, be liable to transportation for seven years.' For the proviso, see under Documentary Evidence.

Banks of England and Ireland dividend warrants] 6. 'Whosoever, being a clerk, officer, or servant of, or other person employed or intrusted by the governor and company of the bank of England, or the governor and company of the bank of Ireland, shall knowingly make out or deliver any dividend warrant or warrant for payment of any annuity, interest, or money payable at the bank of England or Ireland for a greater or less amount than the person on whose behalf such warrant shall be made out is entitled to, with intent to defraud, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years.'

Falsification by uttering] See 24-5 V. 98, 28, under Forgery, which was originally dealt with in that s. and other ss. under Forgery and Uttering, &c. (In Other Cases).

For pedigrees, see 22-3 V. 35, 24; for the land register, 38-9 V. 87, 100 (where there may be a fine of 5001.); for other registers, see False Declarations; for county court process, 51-2 V. 43, 180; for the statutes, ordinances, &c. of British possessions, &c., 7 E. 7, 16, 1 (2); for company books, &c., Companies; for certified legal copies, 14-5 V. 99, 15.

* Records'] Certifying as true any false copy of or extract from any of the records,' &c. in the Public Record Office is made felony by 1-2 V. 94, 19.

Trade union rules] By 34-5 V. 31, the Trade Union A. 1871, s. 18: "If any person with intent to mislead or defraud gives to any member of a trade union registered under this Act, or to any person intending or applying to become a member of such trade union a copy of any rules or of any alterations or amendments of the same other than those respectively which exist for the time being, on the pretence that the same are the existing rules of such trade union, or that there are no other rules of such trade union, or if any person with the intent aforesaid gives a copy of any rules to any person on the pretence that such rules are the rules of a trade union registered under this Act