153 Mass. 330 | Mass. | 1891
The usual form of indictments in this Commonwealth for obtaining money or other property by false pretences contains a direct allegation to the effect that the person alleged to have been defrauded believed the pretences to be
There is at least one case in our reports, in which the only allegation that the person defrauded believed the representations to be true, and was induced thereby to part with his property, is that by means of said false pretences the defendant did then and there unlawfully obtain from him the property described, and the indictment was held sufficient, on motion in arrest of judgment, although the precise point now taken was not considered in the case. Commonwealth v. Hulbert, 12 Met. 446. In the present case we are not, perhaps, required to determine whether the fourth and fifth reasons assigned in the motion to quash would be sufficient if they stood alone, because we think that they must be considered in connection with the sixth and seventh reasons assigned.
The employment of the defendant by the insurance company is alleged to have been “to solicit and obtain applications to said insurance company for insurance, for a compensation to be paid him therefor,” etc.; and in the particular case set out in the indictment it is alleged that the compensation “ would be due him, the said Richard J. Dunleay, upon the acceptance by the said insurance company of the said application for insurance.” The indictment does not allege that this application for insurance was ever accepted by the company. We think that the connection between the false pretence and the obtaining of the money and the bank check is not set out with the technical precision required in this Commonwealth. The indictment should allege
