Court Opinion

ID: 9561931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:18:55.834996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:33.889851
License: Public Domain

PARKER, J.,
concurring in result. I am of opinion that the bill of indictment in this case as drawn is defective. However, I believe that upon the facts here a valid indictment could have been drawn under G.S. 14-100, charging false pretense. I agree with the authorities that hold “that a state of mind is a fact, and that, therefore, a false statement as to the intention of accused is a false pretense as to an existing fact* * 35 C.J.S., False Pretenses, sec. 10, p. 819. Lord Justice Bowen said in Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885), Law Reports, 29 Chancery Div. 459, a classic statement which has been quoted with approval since by many courts: “There must be a misstatement of an existing fact: but the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. It is true that it is very difficult to prove what the state of a man’s mind at a particular time is, but if it can be ascertained it is as much a fact as anything else. A misrepresentation as to the state of a man’s mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact.” I realize there is authority to the contrary. C.J.S., op. cit., p. 819.
See also the quotation from 35 C.J.S., False Pretenses, sec. 9, in S. v. Phillips, 240 N.C. 516, 82 S.E. 2d 762.