Commonwealth v. Burdick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan. 19. — This was an indictment under the act July 12th, 1842, sect. 21, Pamphlet Laws 345, which provides, that “ every person who, with intent to cheat or defraud another, shall designedly, by colour or any false token or writing, or by any false pretence whatever, obtain from any person any money, personal property, or other valuable things, shall, See.and it alleged that the defendant falsely, Sec., “pretended to, &c., that he possessed a capital of'$8000; that said…
Read the full summary
Jan. 19. — This was an indictment under the act July 12th, 1842, sect. 21, Pamphlet Laws 345, which provides, that “ every person who, with intent to cheat or defraud another, shall designedly, by colour or any false token or writing, or by any false pretence whatever, obtain from any person any money, personal property, or other valuable things, shall, See.and it alleged that the defendant falsely, Sec., “pretended to, &c., that he possessed a capital of'$8000; that said $8000 had come to him through his wife, it being her estate, and that a part of it had already come to his possession, a…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
— The rale of the common law, that cheating in private transactions without affecting the public, must, to be indictable, have been effected by artful devices or false tokens, was found to be too narrow for the business of the world; and the English statute, 20 Geo. 2, c. 29, which has given place to the 7 Geo. 4, c. 92, sect. 53, was enacted to extend the limits of the offence. From these our act of 1842, sect. 21, seems to have been taken, and decisions on the clause in the first, which declares it an indictable offence to get money, chattels, or securities, from another “by false pretence…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Neall v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Elonis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Elonis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015