Volume 1 — Vaux's Pennsylvania Reports

In October, 1841, the parties in the city of New York, entrusted to me the duty of arresting the above named defendant on the charge as stated. A more successful and daring crime, the amount invested, the means by which it was effected — together with the various circumstances connected with the arrest and trial of the prisoner — was never before presented to the consideration of the public.

This case was one of much importance to the public, because it was among the first, if not the very first instance in the state, in which threats and plans were systematically made and adopted, for the avowed purpose of extorting money from the accused, through fear of a prosecution for an unnatural crime. After the several hearings, and the argument of the learned counsel; on the 10th of November, 1841, the Recorder gave the following opinion in the case.

<p>[Charged on the oath of Austin Montgomery with a conspiracy to cheat and defraud the stockholders of the United States Bank of Pennsylvania,]</p>

After the defendants were arrested, and before the hearing of the complaint, a rule was taken to show cause why the warrant should not be quashed, on the ground that the wife, on whose oath the process issued, could not legally testify.

<p>[Charged with infanticide, and concealing the death of her bastard child.']</p>

<p>[Making a false writing.]</p>

The prisoner was arrested on a warrant issued on the oath of D. H. Carr, an officer from New Haven, Connecticut, charging him with the murder of J. D. Dwight, &c. The hearing took place on the 13th October, 1842. The facts as presented on the hearing, are: That officer Carr testified that an oath was made before a justice of the peace in New Haven, on which oath the said justice issued a warrant for the arrest of F assitt, and gave the same to witness to execute.

<p>[Charged with perjury.]</p>

<p>[Charged with uttering and passing a certain false writing, and obtaining thereby property of great value under false pretences.]</p>

<p>[Charged, on the affirmation of James T. Leet and Smith Laws, with a conspiracy to cheat aad defraud them out of $500 each respectively.]</p>

<p>[Surcharge Larceny.]</p>

<p>On the 8th of April, 1843, the Recorder gave the following opinion.</p>

<p>[Charged with adultery.]</p>

<p>[Surcharge obtaining money under false pretences.]</p> <p>Note. — In the case of the Commonwealth v. Burdick, which was heard before the Recorder, and resulted in his being held to bail to appear for trial, was subsequently taken up to the supreme court. We have just received the opinion of the chief justice, Gibson, who delivered the opinion of the court on January 19, 1846.</p> <p>The synopsis of the case is as follows :</p> <p>“ The false assertion of possession of money, on the credit whereof goods were obtained, is a false pretence within the act of July 12, 1842.” We extract the concluding portion of the opinion.</p> <p>“ Now the defendant is charged in the indictment before us, with having wilfully misrepresented that he had a capital of $ 8000 in right of his wife; that a part of it was already received; that another part would be received in the course of a month; and that the residue would be received shortly afterwards: and if as was said in Wilchell’s case, 2 East P. C. 80, false pretence was within the English statute, where-ever it has been the efficient cause of obtaining credit, the false pre-tence before us is within our own.”</p> <p>We have thought it proper to notice this case here, because the reader, by consulting the opinion of the supreme court in extenso, will find what are the views of this court, on the subject of the false pre-tence statute of 1842.</p> <p>We will give one other extract from the opinion. “ But,” says the chief justice, “ I think it at least doubtful whether & naked lie, by which credit has been gained, would not in every case be deemed within our statute which declares it a cheat to obtain money or goods by any false pretences whatsoever.”</p> <p>It will be seen from the above, that the supreme court have given an enlarged, rather than a restricted, interpretation to the statute.</p>

After many weeks consumed in hearing the evidence, and the remarks of counsel in the case, on the 10th November, 1843, the Recorder gave the following opinion.

After the several hearings in this case, and the arguments of counsel, the Recorder said he would take time, to examine the questions involved in the case, and give his decision at a future day. On the 14th of June, 1844, the following opinion was delivered, and the defendant discharged.

<p>[Charged on the oath of Edward Hooper with assault and battery.]</p>

<p>[Libel on W. B. Storm, Daily Chronicle, August 20, A. D. 1844.]</p>

<p>[Charged with obtaining $218 from G. Manley, under false pre-tences, &c.]</p>

<p>[Charged on information on oath, of the deputy Attorney-General of Philadelphia county, with having violated certain conditions of a pardon, granted to him by his excellency the governor of the commonwealth.]</p>

<p>[Charged on oath of Charles Dull with forgery.]</p>

<p>[Charged with being a fugitive from justice from the state of New York, where he has committed as is alleged, the offence of obtaining certain goods under false pretences, contrary to the statute of said state in such case made and provided.]</p>