by him was reached. But the jury have found that he had a fraudulent intention, and made false representations. They were not too remote.

WRIGHT, J. If he had merely entered for the races, probably that act alone would not have been sufficiently proximate to be indictable. But here he actually ran; and, even when the running was over, he repeated the lie. If so, there is an indictable attempt; for Reg. v. Larner is not to be recognised as an authority.

The other three Judges concurred.

[But mere lapse of time does not necessarily make the causation

too remote.]

THE QUEEN v. MARTIN.

CROWN CASE RESERVED.

1867.

L.R. 1 C.C.R. 56.

[The prisoner was indicted at the Quarter Sessions for the county of Warwick for obtaining a spring van with intent to defraud, by falsely representing that he was "the agent to the Steam Laundry Company, of which some of the leading men in Birmingham were at the head," and that, as such agent, he was desired by the company to procure a spring van for the use of the company. It was shewn that the prisoner, when ordering the van, had made the representation set out in the indictment. And the prosecutor stated that he supplied the van to the prisoner solely as agent of the company, and on the faith of his representation that the company consisted of the leading men in Birmingham; though he admitted that he had taken the prisoner's representation about the company without inquiring who the leading men of Birmingham at the head of it were, and without requiring any reference. The prosecutor had built the van and lettered it as directed, when the prisoner wrote countermanding the order. The van was nevertheless delivered, in pursuance of the original order; and at prisoner's request some boards were afterwards put in it. Subsequently the prosecutor received notice of a meeting of prisoner's creditors, which he was invited to attend as a creditor. This he declined to do; and on his protesting to the prisoner that it was the company he had made the van for, the latter replied, "I am the company; there is no company but only me." The prisoner was convicted; but a case was stated for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal whether a verdict of Guilty was a right verdict upon the evidence.]

Kennedy, for the prisoner. In order to support an indictment for obtaining by false pretences, the thing obtained must be in existence when the false pretence is made. A man cannot be indicted for obtaining by false pretences an agreement to make something. The old law contemplated the existence of something of which there could be an owner; and although now, by the 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88, ownership need not be alleged, yet the nature of the thing to be obtained is not altered. Section 90 of that act applies to the case of valuable securities not in existence when the false pretence is made; but there is no offence in ordering a chattel to be made. A man cannot be convicted of obtaining a dog by false pretences, because a dog is not the subject of larceny: Reg. v. Robinson'. Neither is that the subject of larceny which is not in existence when the false pretence is made.

[WILLES, J. The law did not condescend to take notice of base animals. A dog was not the subject of larceny at common law, because, as it was said, a man shall not hang for a dog.]

In Douglass's Case it was held that money obtained from a servant cannot be described as the property of the master because the master afterwards reimburses the servant. In Wavell's Case, where a man induced a banker to honour his cheques by false pretences, the conviction was held bad, because what was obtained was credit on account.

[BLACKBURN, J. There the prisoner never obtained the money at all. The question here is, whether the van, when built, was obtained by a continuing false pretence.]

5

The doctrine of a continuing pretence is not to be found in the statute. In Gardner's Case the prisoner obtained a contract for lodging by false pretences, and afterwards obtained food under that contract; but it was held that the getting the food was too remotely the result of the false pretence. So here the false pretence was exhausted in obtaining the contract to build the van. Bryan's Case is still more strongly in favour of the prisoner.

6

[LUSH, J. In Gardner's Case the prisoner did not contemplate obtaining the food when he made the false pretence.

BLACKBURN, J. It is not everything obtained subsequently that is obtained by the false pretence. I should have said that even in Gardner's Case the question of remoteness was one for the jury. Here, however, the delivery of the van was the very object and aim of the false pretence.]

No counsel appeared for the Crown.

1 Bell, C. C. 34; 28 L. J. (M.C.) 58.

See 7 Rep. 18 a.

31 Camp. 212.

62 F. and F. 567.

1 Moo. C. C. 224. 5 Dearsly and Bell, C. C. 40.

BOVILL, C.J. The question asked of us is, whether the verdict was right upon the evidence. This we understand to mean whether there was evidence to go to the jury; and so understanding it, we are all of opinion that there was. The objection urged upon us has been answered by my brothers Willes and Blackburn in the course of the case; and it is obvious that there are many cases within the mischief of the statute where the thing obtained is not in existence when the false pretence is made. Thus a man, by false pretences, may induce a tailor to make and send him a coat, or a friend to lend him money which may consist of bank-notes not printed when the false pretence was made on which the loan was granted. So also a man might obtain coals which were not got (and therefore not a chattel in the eye of the law) at the time of making the pretence. It is absurd to say that the chattel obtained must be in existence when the pretence is made. The pretence must, indeed, precede the delivery of the thing obtained; but at what distance of time? What is the test? Surely this, that there must be a direct connection between the pretence and the delivery—that there must be a continuing pretence. Whether there is such a connection or not is a question for the jury. In Gardner's Case the prisoner obtained, at first, lodgings only; and, after he had occupied the lodgings more than a week, he obtained board; and it was held that the false pretence was exhausted by the contract for lodging; the obtaining board not having apparently been in contemplation when the false pretence was made. It is true that in Bryan's Case the contract was for board as well as lodging: but there the indictment was for having obtained sixpence as a loan some time after the contract for board and lodging had been entered into; and it is clear that the obtaining the loan was as remote from the false pretence under which the contract for board and lodging had been entered into, as the obtaining of the board was from the false pretence made in Gardner's Case1. In the present case, when the false pretence was made and the order given, it was never contemplated that the matter should rest there; and we have no difficulty in holding that there was a continuing pretence, and a delivery obtained thereby.

1

CHAPTER III. THE RIGHT OBTAINED.

[Obtaining a mere right to possession, and not ownership, does not

suffice.]

THE QUEEN v. KILHAM.

CROWN CASE RESERVED. 1870.

L.R. 1 C.C.R. 261.

Case stated by the Recorder of York.

Indictment under 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88, for obtaining goods by false pretences. The prisoner was tried at the last Easter Quarter Sessions for York. The prisoner, on the 19th of March last, called at the livery stables of Messrs Thackray, who let out horses for hire, and stated that he was sent by a Mr Gibson Hartley to order a horse to be ready the next morning for the use of a son of Mr Gibson Hartley, who was a customer of the Messrs Thackray. Accordingly, the next morning, the prisoner called for the horse, which was delivered to him by the ostler. The prisoner was seen, in the course of the same day, driving the horse, which he returned to Messrs. Thackray's stables in the evening. The hire for the horse, amounting to 78., was never paid by the prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty.

The question was, whether the prisoner could properly be found guilty of obtaining a chattel by false pretences within the meaning of 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88.

*

BOVILL, C.J. To constitute an obtaining by false pretences it is equally essential, as in larceny, that there shall be an intention to deprive the owner wholly of his property; and this intention did not exist in the case before us. In support of the conviction the case of Reg. v. Bolton1 was referred to. There the prisoner was indicted for obtaining, by false pretences, a railway ticket with intent to defraud the company. It was held that the prisoner was rightly convicted, though the ticket had to be given up at the end of the journey. The reasons for this decision do not very clearly appear; but it may be distinguished from the present case in this respect that the prisoner, by using the ticket for the purpose of travelling on the railway, entirely converted it to his own use for the only purpose for which it was capable of being applied. In this case the prisoner never intended to deprive the prosecutor of the horse or the property in it, or to

1 1 Den. C. C. 508; 19 L. J. (M.C.) 67.

appropriate it to himself, but only intended to obtain the use of the horse for a limited time. The conviction must therefore be quashed. Conviction quashed.

[But if ownership be criminally obtained, the crime is False Pretences (and cannot be Larceny).]

[See REX v. HARVEY, supra p. 214.]

REGINA v. WILSON AND MARTIN.

STAFFORD ASSIZES. 1837.

8 CARRINGTON AND PAYNE 111.

Larceny. The prisoners were indicted for stealing a £5 note and two sovereigns, the property of Robert Parker,

Mr Robert Parker said, "I am a farmer. I was, on the 20th of June, walking towards Walsall, when I saw the prisoner Peter Wilson. He pointed to the ground and said, 'There is a purse.' He picked it up. I said, 'We had better have it cried; as some one may own it.' He replied, "Some one to whom it does not belong may say it is his, and get it from us.' We walked on, and I said, 'We had better see what the purse contains.' He replied, 'Not here, as there are men at work who will see us.' We went about twenty yards further, and the prisoner Wilson opened the purse and took out what appeared to me to be a gold watch chain, and two seals. He said he did not know the value of them, but there was a gentleman on the other side of the road who could probably tell us. This was the prisoner Ambrose Martin. The things were shewn to him; and he said he was in the trade, and asked how we came by the articles. I said we had found them. The prisoner Martin then said it was a very prime article, and worth £14, and that we should divide it between us; and he added that, as we found it on the road, it belonged to us and no one else. The prisoner Wilson said he would take the things to his master; but the other prisoner said he had no right to do so; and he also said, that if I would