Odger's English Common Law

THE FALSE PRETENCE. 367
sufficient if it can be reasonably and naturally inferred from
bis acts or conduct. "Whether it can be so inferred is a ques-
tion of fact for tbe jury to decide. It is not necessary that
the words or that the acts should be capable only of the
meaning charged in the indictment
1 it is sufficient if they
did in fact convey that meaning to the prosecutor. " A
representation must depend upon what a man says or does, and
what his words and acts would convey to the mind of
another. It cannot depend upon the state of his own
mind." 2
If A. tacitly consents to a representation made by B., which A. knows to
be false and by means of which something is obtained from 0., A. may be
held guilty of false pretences by conduct. 3
If a person obtains goods from
another by giving him in payment a cheque upon a bank at whicli he has
no account, he can be indicted for false pretences ; for his act in giving
the cheque is a representation by conduct that the cheque is a good and
valid order for the payment of its amount. 4
;
If, however, the accused at
the time he gives the cheque has good ground for believing that the
cheque will be paid on presentation, he cannot be convicted of false pre-
tences ;
for in that case there is no intent to defraud. 6
Again, it was held that a person, who, though not a member of the
University, entered a shop at Oxford in cap and gown and obtained goods
on credit, was guilty of false pretences ;
for his conduct in assuming such
a costume amounted to a representation that he was a member of the
University. 6
So a person, who fraudulently obtained goods by sending to the vendor
the half of a bank note, having previously parted with the corresponding
half to a third person, was convicted of false pretences ; for by sending the
half-note he represented that he still held the corresponding half and was
ready and able to forward it to the vendor. 7
But in R. v. Jones* the prisoner's conduct was held not to amount to a
representation sufficient to justify the jury in finding that he had obtained
goods by false pretences. The prisoner in that case entered a restaurant
and ordered a meal. He made no verbal representation at the time as to
his ability to pay, nor was any question asked him with regard to it.
After the meal he said that he was unable to pay, and that he had (as was
the fact) only one halfpenny in his possession. At the trial he was con-
1 Per Lush, J., in B. v. Cooper (1877), 2 Q. B. D. at p. 51* ; and see R. v.
Foster, ib. 301. „ „ „
' Per Brett, J., in R. v. Hazelton (1874), L. R. 2 C. 0. R. at p. 139.
3 R. v. Grosvenor (1914), 111 L. T. 1116.
' R. v. Hazelton, iwpra.
« R. v. Walne (1870), 11 Cox, 647.
« R. v. Barnard (1837), 7 C. & P. 784.
i R. v. Murphy (1876), 13 Cox, 298.
» [1898] 1 Q. B. 119.