Year: 1861

Decisions OF the Supreme Court OF the


state of Tennessee at Nashville De.


cember Term, 1860.


Carroll McKOrkle, the State.


The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to
three years confinement in the Penisentiary Of the
State for the offence of obtaining goods under false
pretences and appeals for new trial, to this Court
The facts constituting the offence Shown in the
bill Of exceptions, these: On the Both Of April,
1860 the prisoner cana to the store Of A. J. Brown
& Co., firm Of merchants composed Of said Brown,
William White and Samuel L. Colville, doing busi-
in Warren county, and stated to Brown, one Of
the irm that William Martin had sent him to get
some goods Brown asked the prisoner if Martin
had sent an order by him fer the goods; the prison
er replied that he had not-but that Martin told
him to get the goods and it would all be light:
prisoner further stated that Martin would have sent
written order for the goods, but that he was in a
hurry that morning and had net tina as he was or.
his horse going on the mountain to see about nj
cattle. Upon thsse statements made by the prison
er Brown let him hsVe the goods to wit: two skirts
one pair Of pants three yards Of drilling trim
mings for the pants and one carpet bag, altogether
of the value of So 20, then the property and in
possession of said firm, and which he delivered TO
the prisoner and charged to William Martin by the
prisoner upon the books Of the firm. Sometime
after the goods were sold, Brown informed Hartin


of the transaction and be denied that he had ever
authorized the prisoner, in any manner to get the
goods or make the account, and stated that he
would not pay for them; aud upon the trial. Martin


proved that he had authorized the prisoner to
get the goods He further proved that the proson-


er had been working at his house, but had LETT on


the night Of the 18th of April, and witness did not
see anything more Of him till about the second
Saturday in May, afterwards, and kew nothing Ct
his getting the goods from Brown until Brown
told him Of it. The Eitnesss further stated that
while the prisoner was working for him he came to
town with him and purchased from A j. Brown &
Co., some ten twelve dollars worth Of goods for
the prisoner but never authorized him TO buy any
thing for witness unless it that the prisoner got
some liquor from William Meadows b. his directions
and which he paid for. After the witness heard
that the prisoner had got the goods he took him upon
. warrant for getting upder false pretenees
and had him carried before Justice Of the Peace,
where the prisoner settled the matter by giving his
note with security to witness and witness assumed
the debt to A. ]. Brown Co.


This conviction we think is proper. The jury
have not only found that the statements Of the pris
ouer we're false and that he had authority from
Martin 10 mako them or get the goods-but q 30
that he did not honestly believe he had any such
authority or right and obtained the goods with the
intent to defraud this firm By the Code (sec. 47Ol)
every person who, by any false pretence, with intent
| to defraud another, obtains from any person any
personal property, is guilty of penitentiary Of
fence. This is almost transcript of the English
statute go Geo. 2, ch. "a, } and of that in New
York In substance they are the same. They all
employ the general term of false pretence: and which
has been considered in England and New York as
extending TO every where party has obtained
goods, by falsely representing himself 10 be In a
situation in which he not, or by falsely repre-
senting any occurrence that had not happened to


which persons of ordinary caution might give credit
Young s. others vs. The King Term Rep. SO.


The People VS.. johnson L, Johns. Rep. 292, 3. 1t


is impossible think to distinguish these cases


in principle from the present one. Indeed the Gaze


in johnson is almost identical in its facts The in
gredieuts of the offence are, obtaining the goods by


false pretences, and with an intent TO deraud lnths


case the very natural and circumstantal statement


made by the prisoner when he applied for the goCds


the reason given why he did not bring written order
| connected with the fact that this firm knew he
| had been doing work for Martin and that before
/ that time Martin had purchased goods for him
was well calculated to deceive and impose upon


them. If the false pretence created the credit, il
has been considered in England and New 1ork as


bringing the case within the statute Il John. Rep
1913 AS was said by Lord Kenyon g Term Rep


lO9 the statute creating this offence describes 1t Id


terms extremely general 1t seems difficult to


draw the line and to say to what cases II shall eX
tend and therefore we must see whether each par


ticular case arises comes within It, That this


does we think there can be no doubt. 1t is distln
| guishable frsm Chapman vs. The State. Head 80
| That was the case ofa naked falsehood-not calcu


lated in ITSELF under the circumstances, to impose


upon the prosecutor, and there was some reason tC


doubt whether it really did so.


The principle Of the cases seems to be that wher
ever an exercise Of common prudence and caution


on the part of him from whom the goods are obtain
ed would have enabled him to avoid being imposed


upon by he pretence sleged-the case is not with
in the statute. Otherwiseit lis. People VS. Williams
| Hull 9-I2:3 3 Term Rep. 9S l2 John. Rep. Z92
Colemans case, 2 East p. C. 672-3 But as already
stated we cannot lay down rule which shall apply
| to all cases which NAV arise under this statute


The Judgment will be affirmed. WRIGHT
| Correct copy j. T. CLARK clerk.