Another letter of the same kind had been received by Mr. Endin, entering one Binns for the same race. The letters were received in the usual course through the Post Office. The two entries of Larner and Binns were accepted, and the entrance fee of 2s. 6d. each paid. Mr. Endin stated that he knew nothing about Larner or his accomplishments as a swimmer; that he received his entry in consequence of the representations contained in the letter, and that the start of twenty seconds was apportioned to him for the like reason. He further stated that he handed Larner a competitor's ticket; that Larner swam in the competition, and after being second in his own heat, won the final easily. It was believed that Larner could have won the race from scratch.

For the prisoner it was objected that the false pretences were too remote, that if he obtained anything thereby, it was the competitor's ticket, and not the cup; that the cup was obtained by his own bodily activity; and that the case fell within Reg. v. Gardner (1 Dears. & B. C. C. p. 40; 7 Cox C. C. 136), in which case the prisoner had at first obtained lodgings only by a false representation, and after he had occupied the lodgings for a week he obtained board; and it was held that the false pretences were exhausted by the contract for lodging, the obtaining board not having apparently been in contemplation when the false pretence was made.

For the prosecution it was urged that the false pretence was a continuing one, that the winning of the cup was clearly in the contemplation of the prisoner when he entered for the race, and that the judgment of WILLES, J., in Reg. v. Gardner, citing Reg. v. Abbott and Reg. v. Burgess, was an authority the other way. They also cited Reg. v. Martin (L. Rep. 1 Cr. Cas. Res. 56; 10 Cox C. C. 383).

Held, by the Common Serjeant, after conferring with STEPHEN, J., in the Old Court, that the objection must prevail as the false pretences were too remote.

The prisoner was afterwards tried for uttering the letter, knowing it to be forged, and convicted.

REGINA v. BUTTON.

COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED. 1900.

[Reported 1900, 2 Q. B. 597.]

CASE stated by the recorder of Lincoln.

The prisoner was charged with attempting to obtain goods by false pretences.

On August 26, 1899, there were athletic sports at Lincoln, for which prizes were given. Among the contests were a 120 yards race and a 440 yards race, in respect of each of which a prize was given of the value of ten guineas.

Among the names sent in for these two contests was the name of "Sims, C., Thames Ironworks A. C.," and two written forms of entry were sent in to the secretary of the sports, containing (as appeared to be usual) a statement as to the last four races in which Sims had run. together with a statement that he had never won a race. These forms were not sent by Sims, nor were they in his handwriting, and he knew nothing of them. They were however signed in his proper name, and with his true address, and contained a correct account of his last four performances. The forms were proved to be not written by the prisoner.

The performances of Sims were very moderate, and, as a fact, he was only a moderate runner, and as a result the supposed Sims was given by the handicapper of the sports a start of 11 yards in the 120 yards race and a start of 33 yards in the 440 yards race.

Sims was ill at Erith when the races were run, and was not at Lincoln at all, and he was personated by the prisoner, who was a fine performer and won both contests very easily.

The suspicion of the handicapper being aroused, he asked the prisoner, after the 120 yards race, whether he was really Sims, whether the performance given in the entry form was really his, and whether he had never won a race. To these questions the prisoner answered that he was Sims, that the performances were his own, and that he had never won a race. All these statements were untrue, and in particular he had won a race at Erith in his own name. The handicapper was called as a witness, and swore that he would not have given the prisoner such favorable starts if he had known his true name and performances.

These facts were all admitted, and no evidence was called to contradict them. It was, however, suggested for the defence that the prisoner might have done it for "a lark," or might have possibly done it in order to keep himself in good training. In summing up the case to the jury, the recorder told them that if the prisoner did it for "a lark," without any criminal intent, and without intending to get the prizes, they ought to find him not guilty; but that if he made the false representations wilfully, intentionally, and fraudulently, with intent to

obtain the prizes, they ought to find him guilty of attempting to obtain them by false pretences.

The jury found a verdict of guilty.

It was contended for the prisoner that, on the authority of Reg. v. Larner, 14 Cox C. C. 497, the obtaining the prizes was too remote from the false representation and that he ought to be acquitted. The recorder overruled the objection, but agreed to state this case. A case decided by Lord Lindley at Nottingham Assizes, Reg. v. Dickenson, (1879) Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, 432, 433, 12th ed.; 2 Russell on Crimes, Book III., cap. xxxii., s. ii., p. 511, 6th ed.; Times of July 26, 1879, appeared to be contrary to Reg. v. Larner, supra.

The questions of law for the opinion of the Court were:

(1.) Whether the recorder had summed up the case correctly to the jury.

(2.) Whether the attempt to obtain the prizes was too remote from the pretence.

J. Percival Hughes, for the defendant. The conviction is bad. There was no completed criminal offence, for, assuming that the defendant did make the representations alleged for the purpose of obtaining a longer start in the handicaps than he would have got if he had entered in his own name and disclosed his previous performances truthfully, still there is nothing to shew that he may not have done what he did for amusement, or to keep himself in training, for it is not shewn that he ever applied for the prizes, and even if in the first instance he intended to get the prizes, which is not clearly shewn, still until he applied for them there was a locus pœnitentiæ, and he might never have taken the prizes at all.

[MATHEW, J. Those are questions of fact, and the verdict of the jury negatives the suggestions on behalf of the defendant.]

The intention to obtain the prizes is too remote from the representations. What he really obtained was more favourable terms in handicaps. He came in first owing to his good running. Reg. v. Larner, supra, is a strong authority against the conviction. [He also referred to Reg. v. Eagleton, (1855) 6 Cox C. C. 559; 24 L. J. (M.C.) 158; Reg. v. Gardner, (1856) 7 Cox C. C. 136; Dears. & B. C. C. 40.]

Montague Shearman (T. Hollis Walker with him), for the prosecution, was not called on.

ant.

MATHEW, J. The conviction in this case must be upheld. The case of Reg. v. Larner, supra, is relied upon as an authority for the defendIn that case question was one of fact, and the Common Serjeant directed the jury according to his impression of the view of the law taken by Stephen J., whom it appears from the report he had consulted; but that case is contrary to the ruling of Lord Lindley in a case tried before him at the Nottingham Assizes, supra, and I am clearly of opinion that Lord Lindley was right. The questions to be decided in the present case were pure questions of fact, namely, whether the intention of the defendant, when he entered for the races, was to obtain

the prizes, and whether he made the representations with that intention. It appears from the case that he pretended to be a man who had never won a foot-race, and he was handicapped on the faith of that statement, as is shewn by the evidence given by the handicapper; but it also appears from the case that his statement was false, for he had won races. Then it was suggested that he competed in the name of Sims, as it is put in the case," for a lark"; but that question was for the jury, and they have negatived the suggestion. It was also contended that his coming in first in the races was owing to his own good running; but it was also owing, in part at least, to the false pretences, for by means of the false pretences he obtained a longer start than he would have had if his true name and performances had been known. It is also said that some other act had to be done in order to make the offence complete, and that he could not rightly be convicted because it was not shewn that he had applied for the prizes, and that the criminal intention was exhausted. The argument is exceedingly subtle, but unsound. In fact, he was found out before he had the opportunity of applying for the prizes, as no doubt he otherwise would have done. The pretences which the prisoner made were not too remote, and the conviction was good.

LAWRANCE, J., concurred.

WRIGHT, J. I am of the same opinion. If nothing more had been shewn than that the defendant had entered for the races in a false name, the case would have been different. If he did not run or claim the prize, it would be difficult to say that there was an actual attempt to obtain it. But here in effect he did claim the prize.

KENNEDY and DARLING, JJ., concurred

cutor.

Conviction affirmed.

NOTE ON INTent to DefraUD.-As to the requisite intent to defraud see Rex v. Wakeling, Russ. & Ry. 504, supra; Rex v. Naylor, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 4, 10 Cox C. C. 149; Com. v. Schwartz (Ky.), 18 S. W. 358. See also Penny v. Hanson, 16 Cox C. C. 173. This was a prosecution under 5 Geo. IV. ch. 83, s. 4, for "pretending or professing to tell fortunes or using any subtle craft to deceive and impose on " the proseThe defence was that no evidence had been presented of an intent to deceive. The evidence showed that defendant offered to tell the prosecutor's fortune by means of astrology. DENMAN, J., said: "This is an instance to which the doctrine res ipsa loquitur applies. It is nonsense to suppose that in these days of advanced knowledge the appellant really did believe he had the power to predict a man's future by knowing at what hour he was born, and the position of the stars at the particular moment of his birth. No person who was not a lunatic could believe he possessed such power. There was therefore no need on the part of the prosecution to negative his belief in such power or capacity. The magistrate rightly drew an inference that the appellant had an intent to deceive and impose on the prosecutor."― ED.

CHAPTER XI.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.

SECTION I.

The Receiving.

REX v. RICHARDSON.

OLD BAILEY. 1834.

[Reported 6 Carrington & Payne, 335.]

FOUR of the prisoners were indicted for sacrilegiously breaking and entering a chapel, called St. Philip's Chapel, in the parish of Clerkenwell, and stealing therein certain things. The other prisoner was charged as receiver.1

TAUNTON, J. (in summing up with respect to the receiver), said: Whether he made any bargain or not is a matter of no consequence. If he received the property for the mere purpose of concealment without deriving any profit at all he is just as much a receiver as if he had purchased it. It is a receiving within the meaning of the statute.

Verdict, three of the prisoners guilty and two of them not guilty.

REGINA v. WADE.

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES. 1844.

[Reported 1 Carrington & Kirwan, 739.]

THE prisoners Wade and Kenyon were indicted for having broken and entered the house of Thomas Worsley at Warrington, and having stolen therefrom one watch, two handkerchiefs, and other articles his property, the prisoner Leigh being indicted for receiving the watch and the handkerchiefs, knowing them to have been stolen.

The prisoners Wade and Kenyon pleaded guilty. The prisoner Leigh pleaded not guilty and was tried.

1 Part of the case not involving any question of receiving is omitted.

2 Acc. Com. v. Bean, 117 Mass. 141.- ED.