False Pretences

False representations and statements, made with a fraudulent design to obtain “money, goods, wares, and merchandise,” with intent to cheat, 2 Bouvier, Inst. n. 2308. A representation of some fact or circumstance calculated to mislead, which is not true. Com. v. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 184. Such a fraudulent representation of fact by one who knows it not to be true as is adapted to Induce the person to whom it is made to part with something of value. It may relate to quality, quantity, the nature or other incident of the article offered for sale, whereby the purchaser buying it, is defrauded; Jackson v. People, 126 111. 139, 18 N. E. 286. niey must relate to the past or present; Biddle V. U. S., 156 Fed. 764, 84 O. C. A. 416; People V. Miller, 1G9 N. Y. 339, 62 N. E. 418, 88 Am. St Rep. 546; Cook v. State, 71 Neb. 243, 98 N. W. 810. “ Any representation or assurance in relation to a future transaction may be a promise, or covenant, or warranty, but cannot amount to a statutory false pretence; Com. V. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 185; 3 Term 98; but one will be guilty if there are false representations of a past or existing fact, although a promise be also a part of the inducement to the person defrauded to part with his property; Pearce v. State, 115 Ala. 115, 22 South. 502; State v. Gordon, 66 Kan. 64, 42 Pac. 346; Taylor v. Com., 94 Ky. 281, 22 S. W. 217; Thomas v. People, 34 N. Y. 351; Holton v. State, 109 Ga. 127, 34 S. E. 358; State v. Fooks, 65 la. 196, 462, 21 N. W. 561, 773. It must be such as to Impose upon a person of ordinary strength of mind; State V. Simpson, 10 N. C. 620; Com. v. Wilgus, 4 Pick. (Mas.s.) 178; People v. Haynes, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 557. But, although it may be dlflicult to restrain false pretences to such as an ordinarily prudent man may avoid, yet it is not every absurd or irrational pretence which will be sufficient See Co wen v. People, 14 111. 348; State v. Mills, 17 Me. 211; Russ. & R. 127. Where the statements were absurd or Irrational, the offence is not made out; State v. Cameron, 117 Mo. 641, 23 S. W. 767; State v. Jackson, 128 la. 643, 105 N. W. 61; Com. V. Beckett, 119 Ky. 817, 84 S. W. 758, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 265, 68 L. R. A. 638, 115 Am. St Rep. 285; State v. Stewart 9 N. D. 409, 83 N. W. 869; unless the defrauded person was weak and Ignorant; People v. Bird, 126 Mich. 631, 86 N. W. 127; State v. Southall, 77 Minn. 296, 79 N. W. 1007; People v. Cole, 137 N. Y. 630, 33 N. E. 336; Bowen v. State, 9 Baxt (Tenn.) 45, 40 Am. Rep. 71. It is not necessary that all the pretences should 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 647, 28 Am. Dec. 630. And although other circumstances may have illduced the credit, or the delivery of the property, yet it will be sufficient If the false pretences had such an influence that without them the credit would not have been given or the property delivered; People v. Haynes, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 657; People v. Haynes, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 647, 28 Am. Dec. 630. The false pretences must have been used before the contract was completed; People v. Gdtes, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 311. Extra-judicial admissions and statements of the defendant alone as to the falsity of the statement are not sufficient to warrant a conviction, as the falsity is in the nature of a corpus delicti which requires other proof; People v. Simonsen, 107 Cal. 345, 40 Pac. 440. If the person defrauded was deceived by false statements, it is no defence that he might have ascertained by investigation that they, were false; State v. Keyes, 196 Mo. 136, 93 S. W. 801, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 369, 7 Ann. Cas. 23; Crawford v. State, 117 Ga. 247, 43 S. i). 762; Jenkins v. State, 97 Ala. 66, 12 South. 110; State v. Trisler, 49 Ohio St. 683, 31 N. E. 881; State v. Penley, 27 Conn. 589; contra. Com. v. Grady, 13 Bush (Ky.) 285, 26 Am. Rep. 102; Cowan v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 617, 56 S. W. 751. The question Is modified in the different states by the wording of the statutes, which vary from each other somewhat. It may be laid down as the general rule of the interpretation of the words “by any false pretence,” which are in the statutes, that whereever a person 'fraudulently represents as an existing fact that which is not an existing fact, and so gets money, etc., that is an offence within the acts. See 1 Den. Cr. Cas. 559; 3 C. & K. 98; Com. v. Henry, 22 Pa. 253; People v. Wleger, 100 Cal. 352, 34 Pac. 826. It is a false pretence where a man falsely represents himself to be in a situation or business in which he is not; Higler v. People, 44 Mich. ^99, 6 N. W. 664, 38 Am. Rep. 2*67; Taylor v. Com., 94 Ky. 281, 22 S. W. 217; Com. v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446; Pearce v. State, 115 Ala. 115, 22 South. 502; Thomas v. People, 34 N. Y. 351; Boscow v.' State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 390, 26 S. W. 625; State V. Briggs, 74 Kan. 377, 86 Pac. 447, 7