ployed by the Duke de Lauzun, and that his whole story was a fiction. For this offence he was convicted, and sentenced to hard labour on the Thames. (c) case. A superin having to keep an account of the number of shearers em ployed, and the amount of their earnings and to deliver ed in a false due; and it was holden to It has been agreed upon by all the Judges, that a case Witchell's will be within the statute 30 Geo. II. c. 24. where the credit is created by means of the false pretence; and they held that tendant in a clothing main the following case the prisoner would not have obtained the nufactory credit, but for the false account which he delivered. The evidence was that the prosecutors, from whom the prisoner was charged with obtaining money by false pretences, were clothiers; that the prisoner was a shearman, in their service, and employed to superintend the other shearmen, and to take an account of the persons employed, and of the amount of their wages and earnings; that at the end of each week he was supplied with money to pay the different shearmen by the clerk of the prosecutors, who advanced to him such sum as, according to a written account or note delivered to him by the prisoner, was necessary to pay them. The prisoner was not authorized to draw from the clerk, for money generally on account, but merely for the sums actually earned by the shearmen; and the clerk was not authorized to pay him any sums except what he carried in in his account or note as the amount of what was due to the shearmen for the work they had done. It appeared that the prisoner on the 9th September 1796, delivered to the prosecutor's clerk a note in writing in the following form, " 9th September 1796, Shearmen £44. 11s. Od.," which was the common form in which he made out his account of the amount of their week's wages. And it further appeared, that in a book in his hand writing, which it was his business to keep, (of the men employed, of the work they had done, and of their earnings), there were the names of several men who had not been employed, who were entered as having earned different sums of money, and also false accounts of the work done by those who were em (c) Villeneuve's case, cor. Moreton, C. J. of Chester, and Buller, J. Chester, 1779. 3 T. R. 104, 105, be within the 30 Geo. II. c. 24. Story's case. obtained mo ney from the keeper of a post-office, by assuming to a money or ployed; so as to make out the sum stated in the note to be due to the shearmen. Upon this evidence, the jury found the prisoner guilty; but sentence was respited in order to take the opinion of the Judges, whether this case were within the statute 30 Geo. II. c. 24., the prisoner's counsel contending that no cases were within the statute but those where the original credit was obtained by means of the false pretence; and that it did not extend to cases where there was a previous confidence, as he said was the case here. The Judges, after some difference of opinion, ultimately all agreed on the principle, that if the false pretence created the credit the case was within the statute; and they considered that in this case the defendant would not have obtained the credit, but for the false account which he had delivered in, and therefore that he was properly convicted. (d) In the following case it was contended, that where a party obtained money, by assuming a character which did not belong to him, without making any false declarations, or assertions, the statute did not apply. The indictment charged, that the prisoner fraudulently and deceitfully produced and be the person mentioned in delivered to E. the wife of John Rayner, which John Rayder, which he ner was employed in the business of the post-office, as depresented for puty post-master of the town of Nottingham, an order for payment; but he did not payment of money, commonly called a money order, to wit, for the payment of the sum of one pound, to one John Storer; and that he unlawfully &c. pretended to the said E. Rayner, tion in order, that he was the person named in the said order, by means of which false pretence, he unlawfully, &c. obtained from the said E. Rayner the sum of one pound of the monies of the said John Rayner, with intent to cheat and defraud the said John Rayner; averring also, that the prisoner was not the person named in the order, nor the person entitled to receive the money therein mentioned. There was a second make any false declara tion, or asser to obtain the money. (d) Witchell's case, East. T. and Trin. T. 1798. 2 East. P. C. c. 18. s. 8. p. 830. One of the Judges observed, that the prisoner was not to have any sum he thought fit, on account; but only so much as was worked out. count differing from the first only in alleging the money to be John Storer's, and the intent to be to cheat him. It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner went to the post-office at Nottingham, and inquired of Mrs. Rayner, who transacted the business there for her husband, if there were any letters directed to "John Story, post-office, Nottingham, to be left till cailed for." Mrs. Rayner finding amongst the letters one directed for "John Storer to be left till called for, Nottingham," and supposing it to be the letter for which the prisoner inquired, delivered it to him. The direction then upon the letter was a re-direction of it from Northampton, to which place it had been originally sent from Nottingham. The prisoner, on receiving it, objected to the payment of two shillings for the postage, saying," It was too much from Manchester;" but he paid the money, and went with the letter into the office passage, where he remained a sufficient time to have read it, after which he returned into the office with the money order in question, which had heen enclosed in the letter, and offered it to Mrs. Rayner. Mrs. Rayner told him, he must write his name on the back of the order before she could pay him the money, upon which he wrote his real name, John Story, and she paid him with a one pound note. He then told her, that if she would look again she would find another letter for him, from Manchester, which she did, and he paid for it. The order in question (which was signed by Mrs. Rayner in the name of her husband), was in the following form. "No. 52. Order given by one Deputy on another. "£1. Post-Office, Nottingham, Augt. 2d. 1804. "At sight pay John Storer, according to my letter of "advice of the number and date, the sum of one pound, "and place the same to the account of the money order "office." J. Rayner. "To the Post-master of Northampton. "This order must be signed by the person to whom it is "made payable, and sent up with the quarterly account, as ❝ a voucher for the payment." Freeth's case. The fact of uttering a counterfeit The terms of the letter clearly explained, that the order could not have been intended for the prisoner: and it was proved, that when he was first apprehended, he denied having received the money, or having ever seen Mrs. Rayner but he afterwards assigned a want of money as the reason of his conduct. In the conversation with Mrs. Rayner, she never asked him, if he was the person for whom the letter and order were intended; nor did he say, that he was so. The prisoner's counsel contended, that as the order was given to the prisoner by Mrs. Rayner herself, and the prisoner had merely presented it to her for payment, without making any untrue declaration, or assertion, the case was not within the statute. The learned Judge left it to the jury to find against the prisoner, if they were satisfied, that by his conduct he had fraudulently assumed a character which did not belong to him, although he had made no false assertions and the jury found him guilty. But the sentence was respited, in order to take the opinion of the Judges, as well upon the objection made as upon a further doubt, whether the signature of the prisoner's name, under the circumstances, did not amount to a forgery of a receipt for money, in which the lesser offence was merged. No opinion of the Judges was ever delivered in this case; but, at the subsequent assizes, the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. (e) It appears also, from the following case, that there may be a sufficient false pretence within the statute 30 Geo. II. by the acts and conduct of the party, without any verbal renote as a ge presentations of a false and fraudulent nature. The first count of the indictment was framed on the 33 Hen. VIII. nuine note, held to be tantamount to a represent. c. 1.: but it was ruled that this could not be supported. ation that it was so. The second count was on the statute 30 Geo. II. c. 24. and stated, that the prisoner, intending to cheat and defraud John Beebee, of his monies, goods, and merchandizes, on &c., did, falsely, &c. utter, publish, offer, and tender to the said J. (*) Rex v. Story, cor. Chambre, J., Nottingham Lent Ass. 1805. MS. B. a false, forged, and counterfeit paper, as and for a true paper, and did then and there falsely, knowingly, and designedly, fraudulently and wickedly, pretend to the said J. B. that the said false, &c. paper was a true paper, and signed by one Wm. Sparrow, which paper was as follows, Wolverhampton, 27 Feb. 1807. I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten shillings and six-pence. Wm. Sparrow. with intention the monies, goods, &c. of the said J. B. to obtain, well knowing such paper to be forged and counterfeit; by means of which false pretences, he did obtain from the said J. B. a sum of money, to wit, nine shillings and tenpence, against the form of the statute, &c. The third count stated, that the prisoner, contriving and intending to cheat and defraud the said J. B. of his monies, goods, &c., on, &c. did fraudulently and wickedly utter, publish, offer, and tender to the said J. B. a false, forged, and counterfeit paper, as and for a true paper, and which he then and there did pretend and represent to the said J. B. to be a true paper, subscribed, &c. (and setting forth the paper,) with intention to cheat and defraud the said J. B. and the monies, goods, &c. of the said J. B. fraudulently to obtain, well knowing the said paper to be forged, &c. by means of which last mentioned false pretences, he did then and there fraudu lently obtain from the said J. B. a sum of money, to wit, nine shillings and ten-pence, of the money of the said J. B. It appeared by the evidence of John Beebee, that the prisoner came to his shop at Bilston, on a Saturday night, and asked for a loaf; that he served him with one for five-pence; that the prisoner then asked for some tobacco, and the witness served him with an ounce for three-pence, upon which the prisoner threw down a note for ten shillings and sixpence. The witness said he had no change, but in copper, which the prisoner said would do; and the witness then gave him nine shillings and ten-pence, in copper, which he |