R v James Moland, H. Rugg, G. N. Stephens, Thomas Morris, F. Rugg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 110
LINCOLN's INN
Referred to, Gould v. Houghton, [1921] 1 K. B. 509
110 BEGINA V. JAMES MOLAND, ETC. 2 MOOD. 276. [276] 1843. rigina v. james moland, H. eugg, G. N. stephens, thomas morris, F. rugg. (On an indictment for obtaining money, &c , under false pretences, a party who has concurred and assisted in the frand may be convicted as principal, though not present at the time of making the pretence and obtaining the money.) [Referred to, Gould v. Houghton, [1921] 1 K. B. 509 ] The prisoners were tried before Mr. Justice Coltman, at the December sessions, 1843, at the Central Criminal Court, for obtaining, by false pretences, a cheque for the sum of £40 from the accountant general of the Court of Chancery The fraud was effected by means of a petition exhibited in the Court of Chancery on behalf of one Christopher James Rugg, and the prisoners Francis Rugg, Henry Rugg, George Nathaniel Stephens, and of Stephens's wife, on which an order was made, amongst other things, for the payment of £40 to Christopher James Rugg, by falsely pretending to the accountant general that the prisoner Moland was the said Christopher James Rugg All the prisoners, except Morris, were present at the time when the false representation was made, and were clearly parties to the making of it, and no doubt arose as to them . with respect to Moms the case was different. He was not present when the false representation was made But he had made an affidavit which was exhibited before the master to whom it had been referred, to report on the claims of the petitioners, verifying the state of the family, which affidavit contained nothing untrue, though exhibited for a fraudulent purpose. It was further proved that Morns had received £8 out of the money obtained out of the Court of Chan-[277]-cery, and other evidence was given, tending to shew .that Morris was aware of the fraud which was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Meaney
...164. R. v. BowesENR 4 East, 174. R. v. StoneENR 6 t. R. 527. R. v. Lacy 3 Cox, C. C. 517. R. v. Bull 1 Cox, C. C. 281. R. v. MolandENR 2 Mood. C. C. 276. R. v. BurdettENR 3 B. & Ald. 738. R. v. Lacy 3 Cox, C. C. 517. Lessee of Blackwood v. Gregg Hayes, Rep. 312. R. v. StoneST1 25 St. Tr. 12......
-
Quinlan v Achille
...indicted and convicted as principals, though not present at the time of making the pretence and obtaining the money or goods: R v. Moland, 2 Mood. 276.” 23 Surely the appellant on the evidence before us and on the learned magistrate's findings of fact concurred and assisted in this fraud, a......