State v. . Munday

Reade, J. A says to B, here is a tract of land which belongs to me, and to which I have a perfect title, free from incumbrance; I will sell it to you and make you a perfect title for $300. 13 says I will give it, and he does give it. It turns out that A had no title, ar an incumbered one, and •that he knew it at the time, and intended to cheat and defraud B out of his mcney. Ánd B was defrauded. Is that ¡a false pretence indictable in A ? The defendant says it is not, because false pretence is akin to larceny, and that land is not the subject of larceny, and that neither land nor any transaction conveying land is the subject of false pretence. And for this, State v. Burrows, 11 Ire. 477, is cited. In that case the defendant had by a false pretence induced the prosecutor to convey to him 20 acres of land, and the charge was “ to cheat and defraud the prosecutor of 20 acres of land.” It was held that to obtain land by false pretence was a fraud, but that it was not indictable under the statute which embraced only such personalties as -were the subjects of latceny. IIow does that affect this case? Here is no charge of obtaining land, by a false pretence, but of obtaining money by false pretence. And surely money js the subject of larceny. It is suggested that title to land is often an abtruse ques *462 tion, and that one who is not a lawyer, and indeed one who is, may be innocently mistaken about it, and therci’op- may be punished for an innocent act. Not at all. A mistxke is not indictable. A pretence is not indictable. A false pretence is not indictable. It must be a false pretence with intent to cheat and defraud, and which does cheat and defraud. We were not favored with an argument for the defendant, and his brief refers only to State v. Burrows. If there is any other alleged defect in the indictment, o.ur attention was not called to it, and we have discovered none, although the indictment is not very well framed. . There is error in the arrest of judgment. This will be certified to the end that there may be judgment upon the verdict. State v. Phifer, 65 N. C. 321. Error. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.