This indictment consists of three counts. The first charges a conspiracy of the defendants, with the intent оne James Hawes wrongfully and wickedly to injure and defraud of his money, goods and chattels and estate. The second is for a conspiracy the said James Hawes to injure, cheat and defraud of his moneys, goods and chattels. The third alleges a conspiracy of the defendants, wrongfully аnd wickedly to obtain from James Hawes his money, goods and other property, designedly and by false pretences, and with intent to defraud.
The indictment contains no count or charge against the defendants under the 4th § of c. 161 of the Revised Statutеs, inasmuch as there is no allegation that the frаud or cheating was a “ gross fraud or cheat.”
It is not necessarily in law, a crime, which subjects the рerpetrator to punishment, to defraud one of his money, goods, chattels or estate, nor to cheat and defraud one of the samе; nor wrongfully and wickedly obtain his money and other рroperty, designedly and with intent to defraud. Commonwealth v. Eastman & als.
The third count goes farther than the others. Is that a sufficient basis for a judgment ? It is a conspiracy for two or more persons, with the fraudulent and malicious intent, wrong
Thе purpose, which was the object of the conspiracy, as alleged in the third count, not bеing criminal in itself, if there is any offence charged, it must consist in the means designed to be employed. These must be specifically stated. State v. Ripley & als. 31 Maine, 386. In this сount the means are described only as being “fаlse pretences.” By this the accused could not be sufficiently informed of the acts, against which they were called to answer. The description of the means are too general, аnd not in accordance with the established rules of criminal pleading.
Exceptions sustained. Judgment arrested.