| Mass. | Nov 4, 1876
It is no ground for quashing an indictment for obtaining property by false pretences, that it may contain some
The fact that the defendant represented that the note in evidence was secured by mortgage was competent evidence, and the instructions required in relation to it would depend upon the state of the evidence, and will be presumed to be proper if no objection is made to them. Ho such objection appears, and no error is therefore to be presumed.
The objection that there was a variance between the note produced and the note described in the declaration is decided to be unfounded. Williams v. Hayward, 117 Mass. 532" court="Mass." date_filed="1875-05-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/williams-v-hayward-6418112?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6418112">117 Mass. 532. Commonwealth v. Henry, 118 Mass. 460" court="Mass." date_filed="1875-10-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-henry-6418230?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6418230">118 Mass. 460.
The objection that the false pretences must have been in writing does not appear to have been raised upon the trial; nor does it appear affirmatively that they were not in writing; nor is the case at bar within the class of cases in which the statute requires the false pretences to be in writing. Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 54.
Exceptions overruled.