Court of Criminal Appeal
| Date | 01 October 1951 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835101500404 |
| Published date | 01 October 1951 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Court of Criminal Appeal
FALSE
PRETENCES
AND
'OBTAINING'
FOR
THE
BENEFIT
OF
ANOTHER
PERSON.
TRANSCRIPT
OF
SHORTHAND
NOTES
OF
TRIAL
R. v. Lurie
THE objection which was
taken
by
the
appellant in
this
case (1951, 2
All
E.R.
704) with regard
to
a con-
viction of false pretences was
that,
although
the
indictment
alleged
that
the
appellant obtained
the
property
in question,
namely, cheques, he did not, in fact, do so.
The
appellant,
with
two
other
persons who did
not
appeal, was convicted
of conspiring to cheat
and
defraud
"such
persons as
might
be induced
to
part
with money
and
goods"
to
alimited
company
by
false pretences,
and
also of obtaining cheques
by
false pretences from one N.
The
three defendants represented
that
the
company
was financially sound
and
was carrying on a prosperous
business although
they
knew
it
was on
the
verge of bank-
ruptcy.
The
cheques obtained
by
the
appellant as
the
result of these false representations were made
out
to
the
company.
The
Court (Lord Goddard, C.]., Hilbery
and
Ormerod
]].)
held
that
as
the
company obtained
the
cheques
the
charge should have been laid
that
the
appellant
obtained
the
cheques for
the
use of
the
company,
not
that
he himself obtained them.
"It
is a technical
point",
said
Lord
Goddard, C.]:,
"and,
in one sense, has no merits,
but
it
is a good
point".
The
Court
had
held in R. v. Ball
(1951
2
K.B.
109)
and
R. v. Smith (1950, 2
All
E.R.
679)
that
"obtained"
meant
obtained
the
property
and
not
merely
the
possession.
If
the
cheque was made
out
to
the
com-
pany, as
it
was in this case,
the
appellant
and
his co-
prisoners might
have
been guilty of making false pretences
with
intent
to
defraud,
but
they
did
not
do so
with
the
intent
of obtaining
the
cheques for themselves.
They
were
obtaining
them
for
the
company and, therefore, technically
87Q
To continue reading
Request your trial