¶1 There were five grounds assigned for quashing the indictment, only one of which we think is worthy of the consideration of this court, and that is the second which assigns the want of certainty in the description of the property obtained as a fatal defect in the indictment. We hold this objection is well taken. The bill is informally and loosely drawn, and We think the allegation that the defendant obtained goods and money from Henderson Pritchard and John A. Pritchard is too vague and uncertain. As a general rule the same degree of certainty in the description of the goods obtained, in indictments for obtaining goods Under false pretences, is required as in the description of goods alleged to be stolen, in larceny. The goods should have been described specifically by the names usually appropriated to them, and the money obtained should have been described at least by the amount, as for instance so •many dollars and cents. An indictment before 1877 for stealing “money” without further description could not have been sustained, and the legislature to remedy the difficulty of describing and identifying bank bills, treasury notes, &c., which may be stolen, passed the act of 1876-77, ch. 68, providing that in indictments in such cases it shall be sufficient to describe such money, treasury note or bank bill simply as “ money.” There are cases where indictments have been sustained for obtaining by false pretences so many dollars — say eighty dollars of the moneys of A. B. — and if this indictment had been so drawn we would have sustained *640 it notwithstanding its inartificial form in other respects. But we think the term “money” without anything added to make it more definite is too loose in indictments of this kind. There is error in the ruling of the superior court.
¶2 The judgment of that court is reversed. Let this be certified to the superior court of Bertie county, to the end that further proceedings may be had in conformity to this opinion and the law.
¶3 Error. Reversed.