REG. V. HAZELTON. 1874. before mentioned, does by the mere fact of giving the cheque without saying more than that he wishes to pay ready money, make either of the false pretences alleged in the indictment, viz.: First, that he then has money to the amount of the cheque in the bank upon which it is drawn; secondly, that he then has authority to Pretences draw upon the bank for that sum; thirdly, that the cheque which he gives is a good and valid order for the payment of its amount; fourthly, that he then has a banking account with the bank upon which his cheque is drawn, and where his account is overdrawn. False Evidence. I summed up the case to the jury, and they found that the prisoner did not intend, when he gave the respective cheques mentioned in the indictment, to meet them, and that he intended to defraud. A verdict of guilty was thereupon recorded, and I abstained from passing judgment, and reserved for the opinion of the Court for Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved, the question whether there was any evidence to go to the jury of the prisoner having made any of the false pretences mentioned in the indictment? If there was, the conviction is to be confirmed. If there was not, it is to be reversed. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Common Sergeant of London. No counsel appeared to argue for the prisoner. Besley, for the prosecution.-The conviction is right. The jury have found that the prisoner did not intend, when he gave the several cheques, to meet them, and that he intended to defraud. [LUSH, J.-It can hardly be maintained that a person, by giving a cheque, conveys the representation that he has, at the moment of giving it, funds to the amount of it in the bank.] Each case depends on its own circumstances. In this case, the prisoner knew that the cheques would not be met. In Rex v. Jackson (3 Camp. 371), Bayley, J., said: "The point had been recently before the judges, and they were all of opinion that it is an indictable offence fraudulently to obtain goods by giving in payment a cheque upon a banker with whom the party keeps no cash, and which he knows will not be paid." [BRETT, J.—There is no doubt here of the fraudulent intent. The question is, whether the prisoner made a fraudulent representation.] The indictment alleges that the prisoner falsely represented that he then had authority to draw a cheque upon the bank, and also that the cheque was a good and valid order for the payment of money. The giving of the cheques fraudulently proves those representations. In Reg v. Giles (34 L. J. 53, M.C.), Blackburn, J., says: "It is not requisite that the false pretence should be made in express words, if the idea is conveyed." [POLLOCK, C.B.-You may contend that the giving of the cheque was a representation that it would be honoured when presented, whereas he well knew that it would not.] Certainly; for the prisoner, when he gave the cheque, said that he wanted to pay cash, and so obtained a REG. v. HAZELTON. 1874. False Evidence. discount. In Lockett's case (Leach C. C. 53) it was held that a forged draft on a banker was an order for the payment of money. In Reg. v. Parker (2 Moo. C. C. 1; 7 Car. & P. 825) the majority of the judges held that a count which charged that the prisoner pretended that a certain paper writing which he then produced and was as follows [setting out a cheque], was a good and Pretencesgenuine order for payment of the sum of, &c., was proved by the following facts: the prisoner went and bought a watch of the prosecutor, and gave in payment of it a post-dated cheque on a bank where he had no funds, falsely representing to the prosecutor that he had an account with the bankers on whom the cheque was drawn, and that he had a right to draw the cheque, though he postponed the date for his own convenience. So, in the present case, the prisoner fraudulently represented in each transaction that he wished to pay ready money, and gave the cheques. It is submitted, therefore, that the second and third false pretences charged were substantially proved. KELLY, C.B.-I am of opinion that the conviction must be affirmed. Two questions arise in the case. The first is, whether, on the facts and documents proved, the prisoner has expressly or impliedly fraudulently made the representations on which the goods were obtained; the second, whether any one of the representations alleged is a false pretence within the statute. The indictment alleged three false representations: First, that the prisoner falsely pretended that he then had money to a certain amount in the bank; secondly, that he then had authority to draw a cheque upon the bank for that amount; thirdly, that a certain paper writing was a good and valid order for the payment of that amount. If the case had rested upon the first pretence alone, there would have been considerable difficulty in supporting the conviction, because there are many cases in which no such representation can be implied from the mere giving of a cheque as a general rule, for persons of undoubted substance and respectability often draw cheques exceeding the balance to their credit at their bankers, and which are paid by the bankers. We may, therefore, put that representation out of the case. The second alleged pretence is, that the prisoner then had authority to draw a cheque upon the bank for the amount. That is an important representation, and arises when a man gives a cheque in payment for goods or in satisfaction of any other demand; and I think that false representation was proved in this case. But if there is any doubt about the case it is removed when we look at the third pretence, that the proper writing produced by the prisoner was a good and valid order for the payment of the sum therein mentioned. The case of Reg. v. Parker expressly decides that that is a false pretence within the statute. Then comes the main question: is it to be implied from the facts proved that the prisoner made all or any of these false representations? As regards the second and third false pretences, it is perfectly clear that the prisoner knew at the time when he gave the cheques that he had REG. v. HAZELTON. 1874. False Evidence. no authority to draw cheques for the amounts specified therein, and that he well knew that they would not be paid. Those false pretences were, therefore, proved, and the conviction must be affirmed. LUSH, J.-I am of the same opinion. I also think that the mere giving of a cheque does not convey a representation that Pretences the drawer has money to the amount of the cheque in the banker's hands at the time of giving it. Many persons give cheques exceeding their balance at the bank at the time, in the expectation of their being able to pay in money to meet them before they are presented. In this case the prisoner ordered and obtained goods, saying he wished to pay ready money; invoices were made out and discount deducted, and prisoner gave cheques for the amount. I think that amounted to a representation that the cheques were equivalent to cash, and, therefore, that the false pretence that the cheques were good and valid orders for the payment of money was proved. BRETT, J.-I am of the same opinion. The learned Common Serjeant in this case doubted, upon the decided cases, whether in point of law a man who gives a cheque in payment, under the circumstances before mentioned, does by the mere fact of giving the cheque, without saying more than that he wishes to pay ready money, make either of the false pretences alleged in the indictment. The question reserved for us is, therefore, pointed to that part of the necessary proof on the trial of an indictment for false pretences-the proof of a false representation of a fact which, if it had not been false, would have been an existing fact. The Common Serjeant has pointed to the facts on which he wants the opinion of this court. Now, the meaning of a representation to another person, cannot depend upon the state of mind of the person making the representation, but must depend on what idea he conveys to the mind of the other person. It is common knowledge that persons have authority from a bank to draw cheques to a considerable amount, when they have no money at the bank. I am of opinion, therefore, that the mere giving of a cheque does not convey a representation that the drawer has money at the bank. Then, as to the second false representation, that the prisoner had authority to draw upon the bank for the amounts in the cheques. Now, if the giving of a banker's cheque does not mean that, what does it mean? Then, as to the third false representation, but for the case of Rex v. Parker, I should have doubted whether the mere giving of a cheque was a representation of an existing fact, that the cheque was a good and valid order for the payment of money. QUAIN, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think that the giving of the cheques in this case amounted to a representation that they were good and valid orders for the payment of the sums therein mentioned, on the authority of Rex v. Parker, which was decided by a majority of the judges. The only difference in the facts is, that the prisoner in that case had no funds at all at the bank, whereas in this he had a few shillings. REG. v. POLLOCK, B.-I am also of opinion that this conviction should be affirmed. I think that there was evidence that the prisoner HAZELTON. made the false representation thirdly charged; that the cheques when given were good and valid orders for the payment of the sums specified therein. Conviction affirmed. 1874. False Pretences- COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. Saturday, Nov. 14th, 1874. (Before KELLY, C.B., LUSH, J., BRETT, J., QUAIN, J., and POLLOCK, B.) REG. v. RANSFORD. (a) Misdemeanor-Attempt to commit—Indictment. A count in an indictment charged that the prisoner unlawfully, Held, that the count charged an indictable misdemeanor. Held, that the sending the letter proved the attempt to incite, al- CASE reserved for the opinion of this Court by Bram well, B. The prisoner was tried at the September Sessions of the Central Criminal Court, 1874, upon the following indictment: First count. That at the time of committing the offence hereinafter in this count mentioned, one William D'Arcy Gardiner O'Halloran was a youth of the age of fourteen years, and was Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. RANSFORD. 1874. -Attempt to Incite. a scholar in the school of Christ's Hospital, and was under the care, custody, and control of the Governors of Christ's Hospital, in the city of London, and was then being educated in the said school in the principles of religion, morality, and virtue, with the object that he might thereafter, when beyond the care and control of the said Misdemeanor Governors, enter into the society of his fellow men, and be received by them as a man of honourable, manly, and virtuous habits, and that Edward Ransford, being a person of wicked, immoral, and depraved mind and disposition, with intent to debauch the said William D'Arcy Gardiner O'Halloran, and to vitiate and corrupt his mind, on the 5th of September, 1874, unlawfully and wickedly did write and send, and cause and procure to be written and sent to the said William D'Arcy Gardiner O'Halloran, a certain lewd and indecent letter, in the words and figures following, that is to say: Henderson's, Oakley-square, 5th Sept. 1874. I shall only be here to-morrow, and therefore a post-office is my safest address. That the said Edward Ransford, in manner and by the means Second count.-That at the time of committing the offence hereinafter in this court mentioned, there was and yet is a certain body corporate called the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, governors of the possessions, revenues, and goods of the hospitals of Edward, late King of England, the Sixth, of Christ, Bridewell, and St. Thomas the Apostle, as Governors of Christ's Hospital, and the said body corporate had under its charge, care, and control, a certain school called and known as Christ's Hospital, wherein divers large numbers of children of tender years, and lads and young men under the age of twenty-one years, were under the said care, charge, and control of the said body corporate, being instructed in the principles of virtue, religion, and morality. And that the said Edward Ransford, being a person of wicked, immoral, and depraved mind and disposition, and seeking to debauch, vitiate, and corrupt the minds and morals of the children and other young persons being |