Smith v. State

Indictment for obtaining under false pretenses, “twenty-five dollars in money of the personal goods and chattels of,” &e. Motion to quash overruled. This is assigned for error.

In The People v. Conger, 1 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 448, it is held, that the property obtained under a false pretense must be described with as much accuracy anc particularity as goods stolen must be in an indictment for larceny. Markle v. The State, 3 Ind. 535; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 999. In the case of The State v. Stintson, 4 Zab. 1, the charge that the defendant converted to his own use ten thousand dollars of money and…