The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1889-03-14
DEFECTIVE LAW.
The Statute Should be Amended
for the Protection Or Land and
Labor.
Written for the GOLD Leaf

Written for the GOLD LEAF.l
EDITOR GOLD LEAF The language
Of our statute of 1871, chapter SI4,
section, 1923, Of the Code of North
Carolina, volume I is as follows:
.If any person shall knowingly and
designedIy by means of any forged or
counterfeited paper, &c, obtain from
any person, or corporation within the
State, any money, goods, property, or
other thing Of value, or any bank note,
check, or order, for the payment OF
money, &C., with intent to cheat and
defraud any person, &C., shall be guilty
of misdemeanor, and imprisoned
in the Penitentiary, &C."
The language of the above statute,
and the principle laid down in Phifer's
case, IS North Carolina, Kings case, -
North Carolina, and Young's case, Is
North Carolina, to the effect that,
"Where there is false representation
of a subsisting fact, calculated to de-
ceive, and which does deceive, whether
in words, writings, or acts, by which
the defendant obtains something of
value from another without compensa-
ton, it is cheating by false pretence;"
would seem to include within its pur-
view every article, act or object of
value, but not SO; two Of the most i'm
portant "things of 0aIue" are beyond
its protection-Land and Labor.
In State vs.. Burrows, IL 1red. AT,
the ground of complaint was, that the
defendent by means of forged paper
obtained from the prosecutor certain
lands. The defendant was indicted
for obtaining the same under the
statute of false pretences and tokens.
Pearson ]. said, Though the facts
here constitute fraud they do not
come within the definition of any
crime or misdemeanor known either to
the common or statute law. Land is
not included within the operation Of
the statute offalse pretences. 1t is true
the words are very general, money,
goods, property, or other thing Of value,
but they must be construed with regard
to the nature of the offence, the mis-
chief intended to be guarded against,
and the general terms. Larceny at
common law was confined to goods
and chattels; it did not extend to Land
because it could not be feloniously
taken and carried away. By the act
of 1871, chapter S14, larceny is extend
ed SO as to include any bank note,
check or order, &c. The Saith section
includes corn, wheat, cotton, &c,
growing or standing together in any
field. Money, goods and chattels
were included in common law larceny,
bank notes, &C., in larceny as extended
by statute. Our statute furnishing
cheating by false tokens and false pre-
fences is made in express terms to en-
brace all OF these, it may be that "0tae,
THINGS of 1alue' was intended to in
clude corn, wheat, &C., growing and
standing ungathered, but it would be
strange construction to make it in
clude land, for that is not the subject
of larceny at common law nor by
statute
The fact that land is not included
in our statute is recognized in State
VS.. Gillespie, 80 N. c. 5o7. Ashe ].
speaking for the court said, awe think
the words or other things of vakue
were used by the law makers to en-
large the class Of personal things
which they were making it penal to
obtain by false pretences. Such was
the construction put upon the New
York statute in Stetson's case 4th Barb.
ISL, the words being very similar to
ours.
Mr.. May in his work on criminal
law, section us, says, 1.-The property
obtained by false pretences must be
such as is the subject of larceny, and
Mr.. Wharton in his work on criminal
law, section 1904, enunciates the same
principle.
Thus we see that if one obtains land
from another he goes unhurt of the
criminal law, while if he deprives him
of the least article of personal property
of the least value by false pretences he
may be sent to the State Prison for ten
years.
The foregoing authorities establish
that the thing obtained by false pre-
fences in order that the case be indie
table, must be the subject of larceny.
Labor could not be the subject of
larceny, and hence is not within
the purview of the statute. A man
may be deprived of his Labor by false
representations on the part of his en-
ployer such as would render said en-
ployer indictable were the thing OBJ
tanned something other than Land or
Labor, yet it being Labor of which he
is deprived, he cannot sustain an IN
dictment, and as in many cases civil
action is unavailing because of the in
solvency of the employer, the party ag-
grieved is without remedy.
Nor is the offender indictable for a
cheat at common law, for it has been
said, that, ga cheat or fraud affected
by an unfair dealing and imposition on
an individual in the private transaction
between the parties cannot be the sub
ject of an indictment at common law"
Fact D r r. 1S 4. 9I2 P...