John Young, S. Randal, W. Mullins, and J. Osmer, against the King
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1789 |
| Date | 07 February 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 475
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Castro v. R., 1881, 6 App. Cas. 235; R. v. Brailsford [1905], 2 K. B. 745.
john young, S. randal, W. mullins, and J. osmbk, against the king. In error. Saturday, Feb. 7th, 1789. To constitute an offence within the 30 Geo. 3, c. 24, money or goods must be obtained by the defendants by a false pretence, with an intent to defraud : and it is no objection that the pretence consists in a representation as of some transaction to take place at a future time. Where the (a) 3 Lev. 427. 476 YOUNG V. THE KING 3 T. R. 99. pretence is conveyed by words spoken by one defendant in the presence of others, who are acting in concert together, they may be all indicted jointly. It is no objection in arrest of judgment that the indictment contains several charges of the same nature in the different counts. [2 M. & S. 379.] [See Castro v. R., 1881, 6 App. Gas. 235 ; R. v. Brailsfard [1905], 2 K. B. 745.] An indictment was preferred at the sessions at Bristol against the defendants on the 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, for obtaining money by false pretences. The first count in the indictment stated that the defendants, fraudulently intending to obtain of the honest subjects of our lord the King their monies, goods, wares, and merehandizea, by false colours and pretences, on the 23d of December, in the 28th year, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and designedly, did falsely pretend to one Thomas, that Young had made a bet of 500 guineas on each side with a colonel in the army then at Bath that William Lewis would on the next day run on the high road leading from Gloucester to Bristol ten miles in length within one hour, and that Young and Mullins did go 200 guineas each of and in the said bet, and Randal did go the other 100 guineas, (meaning that, in case such pretended bet was lost, Young was to contribute and pay 2101. Mullins the like sum, and Randal the remaining 1051.) and did then and there under colour and pretence of such bet, &c. obtain from Thomas as a part of such pretended bet 20 guineas of the 500 guineas; by which said false pretences the defendants did then and there, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly, obtain from the said Thomas the said 20 guineas with intent to cheat and defraud him thereof; whereas in truth and in fact no such bet had been made, &c. to the evil example, &c. against the peace, &c. and against the form of the statute, &c. The second count stated that the defendants unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and designedly, did falsely pretend to the said Thomas that [99] Young had made a bet of 500 guineas on each side with Osmer, that Lewis would on, &c. run ten miles within the hour on the road leading from Gloucester to Bristol, and did then and there under colour and pretence of having made such bet obtain from Thomas 20 guineas, as part of the said last mentioned bet so pretended to be made with Ostner; by means of which said last mentioned false pretence the defendants did then and there, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly, obtain from Thomas the said 20 guineas, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud him of the same; whereas in truth and in fact no such bet was made, &c. to the evil example, &c. against the peace, &c. and against the form of the statute, &c. There were two other counts, charging the defendants with having obtained 20 guineas from Thomas Thomas, by false pretences; without stating what those pretences were. The defendants were found guilty, and sentenced to be transported for seven years. And afterwards they removed the indictment by writ of error into this Court, and assigned for error that the supposed false pretences, shewn in the first and second counts of the indictment, are neither contrary to the statute, 33 H. 8, or 30 Geo. 2, or any other statute. That neither of the counts in the indictment contained any offence against the common law ; and even if so, that the judgment thereupon is not warranted by the common law. And that neither the third or fourth count set forth any offence against the statute or common law ; concluding with the general assignment of errors. Fielding made five objections to the indictment: first, that the transaction itself, supposing it was accurately stated, is not the subject of a criminal prosecution. This indictment being founded on the 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, and that and the 32 H. 8, c. 1, being made in pari materia (a), it is necessary to consider how the common law stood before those statutes passed, in order to see what alteration they intended to make. There are two constituent parts of the offence of " cheating" at common law; first, the Act itself must affect the public; and secondly, it must be such, against which common prudence could not have guarded. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 71. 2 Burr. 1125. Then came the stat. 33 H. 8, c. 1, which made it an offence to obtain money by a false token. The only alteration therefore that this statute [100] made in the law was that, in order to bring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ludlow
......, to whom was referred the Cause Ludlow against Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (on ... Young v. R. (1789) 3 T.R. 98 per Buller J. at pages ...There are later examples. In The Queen v. King [1897] 1 Q.B. 214 at page 216 Hawkins J. ......
-
Taking possession: the defining element of theft?
...'The Borderland of Larceny' (1892) 6 Harvard Law Review 244; Turner, above n 52, vol 2, 921-6, 931, 934, 941-2. (90) In Young v The King (1789) 3 TR 98, 102-3; 100 ER 475,478 (Lord Kenyon CJ), the King's Bench reinterpreted the Statute of 30 Geo II to amount to a general false pretences off......