Odger's English Common Law

368 FALSK PRETENCES AND OTHER FRAUD.
dieted of obtaining goods by false pretences, and also of obtaining credit
by fraud under section 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869. 1 The Court for Crown
Cases Eeserved quashed the former conviction, but affirmed the latter.
A mere expression of opinion, however, is not a false
pretence. A man, who by merely puffing his wares induces
another to purchase them, cannot be convicted of false
pretences, provided that such puffing does not amount to the
assertion of a fact. For example, if he merely says that the
spoons which he is offering for sale "are equal to Elking-
ton's A.," that is a mere puff—a statement as to a matter of
opinion. It would be otherwise if he had stated that they
'" are Elkington's A. ; " 2 for this would be a misrepresentation
of fact.
Again, the representation must be to the effect that a
certain fact exists or has existed. "To be an indictable
false pretence it must be in respect of a supposed present or
past fact." 3 A man cannot be convicted for representing
that he will do something, although he does not intend to do
it. 4 To break such a promise may be a breach of contract
but a breach of contract is not a crime. 5 " A promise as to
future conduct not intended to be kejrt is not in itself a false
pretence." 6
Where, however, a man's promise or threat that
he will do a thing implies a false representation that he now
has the power to do that thing, an indictment will lie.
Thus, if the prisoner obtains goods from A. by promising to return on
the next day and pay for them in cash, this is not a false pretence. But
where a married man obtained money from a woman by threatening to bring
an action for breach of promise of marriage against her, it was held that
an indictment for false pretences would lie ; for his threat to bring the
action involved the false pretence that he was in a position to do so, that is,
that he was UDmarried. 7 So where a woman was deserted by her husband,
and the prisoner obtained money from her by promising to bring her
husband back to her " over hedges and ditches," it was held that the
prisoner was rightly convicted ; for by such promise she represented that
she had the power to bring him back. 8
1 See post, p. 374.
2 R. v. Bryan (1857), 7 Cox, 313.
8 Per Erie, C. J., in R. v. Giles (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. at p. 54.
' R. v. Lee (1863), 9 Cox, 304 ; R. v. Speed (1882), 46 L. T. 174.
6 But see ante, pp. 106, 107.
« Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 22), s. 3.
' R. v. Copeland (1842), Car. & M. 616.
8 R. v. Giles (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. at p. 54.
;