Evening journal., 1901-12-23

made to part with something of value.
Jackson VS.. People 126 H. 139; 2
McIAin on Criminal Law section sc.
Such false pretense may consist inl
any act, word, symbol or token calcu-
lated ito deceive another, and knowing
ly and designedly employed by any
persOn with intent to defraud another
of money or other personal property.
On this point, therefore, If You should
be satisfied from the evidence that The
bill for fifty-siX dollars, for work and
labor made out in the name Of Law
renee NJ Whiteman, was false and
fraudulent: that the work and labor
had not been performed, and that the
said Lawrence NJ. Whiteman was not
entitled to any such money; that the
defendant, John Lynn, knowing the
bill to be false and fraudulent. pre-
sented it. as a just claim to the said
George d. Kelley, county comptroller,
for his approval; then we say to you
that such false and fraudulent bill so
presented by the defendant would con-
stitute a false pretense in law.
Again, if by reason of such false
! pretense, the defendant obtained the
approval of said George ID. Kelley,
county comptroller, to the said bill,
and through such approval procured q
warrant signed by William A. Scott,
president of the Levy Court of New
Castle county, and countersigned by
said County Comptroller, upon the
said Horace G. Rettew. receiver OF
taxes and county treasurer, for the
lsum of fifty-six dollars; then such
false pretense would in law become
incorporated in the said warrant upon
which it was based, and follow, affect
and taint each successive step in the
transaction, up to and until the money
was actually paid to tine said John
Lynn upon the warrant, if it was so
paid; inasmuch as such steps would
only be stages in the journey Of the
said false pretense.
/ In the People VS.. Genet, 19 Hun IN.
l ", 81, a case much like this. this doc
trine was distinctly held There, Genet
} had, by false pretense. procured the
certificate of the approval OF the COM
missiOners 10 erect a court house ia
New York to a fraudulent bill, sent IL
! to the COmptrOller's office, where it
was audited, and a warrant was pre-
pared and signed by the Comptroller
and Mayor. based upon such certifi-
81 cate by the commissioners, and Genet
got the money upon the warrant. The
- court used this language: "The de-
, fense relies, with much confidence
2 upon the fact that the defendant made
no representations personally to the
- Mayor, or to the Comptroller, or tC
e the Auditor Ii must be admitted that
he made no representation personally
to the Mayor inasmuch as no inter
" view between them has been shown
d But he cannot escape from the charge
q that he did indirectly make TO the
!, Mayor a false representation FALSE
d pretense-by the preparation and usi
of the bill, which, through his direc
i instrumentality. became a voucher, ant
upon which, thus created by him. The
Auditor. the Comptroller and Mayo
acted Indeed, 1t may be said that thi.
?. is q liberal statement of the effect O
that paper, so far as the defendant D.
0 concerned. because it might, will
! great propriety, be said THAT the bill
2 prepared by him, and which he knew
- must form the basis of such proceed
g ings as would take place in the fisca
department of the city, was
= direct statement on his par
y that its contents were true T.
y each person whose duty rendered
e necessary for him to examine and ac
Il upon it.
, 1t was this proceeding. this pretense
r which set the claim in motion anl
d formed, as already suggested the verl
% foundation Of all that was subsequent
e. done to consummate the wrong designed
* His actual presence was not necessary t
" accomplish the offense 1t was sufficient
le therefore. the intent to cheat and de
4 fraud existing, to accomplish the CON
y, mission Of the crime that the bill in
E. fuenced the mayor to give his signatur
Id to the warrant, because it was the ez
r elusive, as it was the necessary, founda
lh ton upon which all the ceremonies
ne effectuate it rested Without the bi
I'd there would have been no certificate, n
" audit no warrant and therefore, no at
s. of the mayor. The defendant was dea
ne ing with the funds Of a corporation to
m reached by certain forms designed for th
security Of its members, and knew th
ne mode by which those forms could be al
e piled. The bill was in effect, equivaleI
r. to a verbal representation therefore
lk The same case was carried TO II
e. Court of Appeals, under the title
Mt People VS.. Oyer and Terminer," SO
OF Y. Repts., 496 The Court Of Appeals
en- still more emphatic on this point on pai
10 453, where it says, after citing certa
he cases, in which the false representatiC
w or writing reached the victim through Il
er' Intervention of innocent third partie
ar However indirect or circuitous the cha
On mel by which it reaches its destinatio
er' when there the person who gave it
direction and aim is also there by the j
he suument used to effect his purpose.
ied bare presence, although neither examin'
o. nor read by the mayor, was a false pI
tense. 1t did deceive him; it did procu
my his signature; it said TO him by its me
ON presence that il was an honest clai
icy awaiting payment, when in truth, it W
70 bold fraud, Stimulating honesty to pl
Due cure warrant for a sum, no part
which was due
=. See also Commonwealth vs.. Sweet,
III III Pa. Dist Repts., 1856; Roberts VS.. L
IVi lDt, People Colo, ass.
civ SO that, it may be safely affirmed as
principle of law, based upon comm
i.t sense founded i'm reason and support