24 A.2d 199 | N.J. | 1942
The prosecutors sought certiorari to remove into this court three indictments found at the Somerset Court of Oyer and Terminer. Counsel stipulated in open court that the court might, if it were so disposed, treat the matter as though the writ had been granted and the motions made. Such course will be followed because the case was well argued and the briefs are excellent, and the questions involved can be as well considered now as at any other time.
Supreme Court Commissioner Arthur B. Smith, pursuant to appointment, had conducted, during the summer of 1939, an investigation into the affairs of the Borough of Bound Brook. The indictments charge the corporation and the individual prosecutors with obtaining money under false pretenses and the individual is also charged with false swearing.
The first point is that a corporation is not capable of forming a criminal intent — a necessary element in the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. Reliance is placed upon obiter inState v. Morris and Essex Railroad Co.,
Mr. Justice Swayze said of the case of State v. Morris andEssex case, supra, in State v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.,
The indictments charging the obtaining of money under false pretenses are predicated upon N.J.S.A. 2:134-1 as follows: "Any person who, knowingly or designedly, by color of any false token, counterfeit letter or writing, or by any false pretense, shall obtain from any person any money, wares, merchandise, goods or chattels or other valuable thing, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
N.J.S.A. 2:103-6 provides for punishment by fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment. N.J.S.A.
We can only conclude that a corporation may be liable at the criminal law for a fraud committed by it.
It is next urged that the false pretense indictments were invalid because they do not charge a crime and do not apprise the defendants of what they have to prepare to defend. The *581
charge is in the language of the statute, State v. Tilton,
It seems to us that a charge that X on a day certain, knowingly and designedly by false pretense obtained from Y, $1,198.25, is sufficient. To require the allegation of the false pretense was no doubt necessary under early cases, but we think that the shortcoming can be supplied by a bill of particulars. Nor do we regard State v. Bradway,
The false swearing indictment is drawn in the language of the statute, N.J.S.A. 2:157-4. What has been said heretofore would seem to apply to this indictment. Mr. Justice Case in State v.Ellenstein,
The motions to quash will be denied and the indictments will be remitted to the Somerset County Oyer and Terminer there to be proceeded with according to law. No costs. *582