148 



FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 



Conspiring to 

 obtain money 

 by false 

 pretences. 



Conspiring 

 induce a 

 creditor to 

 forego his 

 claim. 



to 



Where only 

 one person 

 cheats, an 

 action lies. 



Chandelor v. 

 Lopus. 



"Wliere on the sale of two Horses the prosecutor was 

 told by both the defendants that certain Horses had been 

 the property of a lady deceased, and were then the pro- 

 perty of her sister, that they had never been the property 

 of a Horsedealer, and were quiet and tractable, all of 

 which was absolutely false, the defendants were found 

 guilty of conspiring to obtain money by fake pretences, as 

 they knew that nothing but a full belief of the truth of 

 the above statements would have induced the prosecutor 

 to make the purchase, he having repeatedly informed them 

 that he wanted the Horses for his claughter's use [h). 



An indictment lies for conspiracy, where persons have 

 conspii^d to induce a creditor by false representations to 

 forego part of his claim. Thus an indictment was held 

 to be good which alleged that S. sold B. a Mare for 39/. ; 

 that while the price was unpaid B. and C. conspired by 

 false and fraudulent representations made to S. that the 

 Mare was unsound, and that B. had sold her for 27/., to 

 induce S. to accept 27/., instead of the agreed-on price of 

 39/., and thereby to defraud S. of 12/. {i). 



If one man alone sell an Unsound Horse for a Sound 

 one, it is a mere Private imposition, and no Indictment 

 can be maintained, because the buyer should be more on 

 his guard {j). But if it be such an offence, as, if prac- 

 tisecl by two, would be the subject of an indictment for a 

 Conspiracy, the vendor is civilly liable in an action for 

 reparation of damages at the suit of the piu'chaser, be- 

 cause Collusion is not necessary to constitute Fraud (/.•). 



Chandelor v. Lopus. (/) is a well-known case on the 

 subject of Fraudulent JRepresentation. It was an action 

 on the Case against a Jeweller for selling a Jewel, affirm- 

 ing it to be a Bezoar stone, when really it was not one. 

 All the Justices and Barons, except Anderson, held " that 

 the bare affirmation that it was a Bezoar stone, without 

 warranting it to be so, was no cause of action ; and that 

 although the seller hnew it to be no Bezoar stone, it was not 

 material, because every one in selling his wares ^dll affirm 

 that they are good, or that the Horse which he sells is 

 Sound ; yet if he does not warrant them to be so, it is 

 no cause of action, and the Warranty ought to be made 

 at the same time as the sale." 



(A) Reg. V. Kenricl-, 5 Q. B. 63. 1128. 



(i) R. V. Carlisle, 23 L. J., M. C. (/.■) Paslnj v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 



109. oS. 



(,/) Rex V. IVheath/, 2 Burr. (/) Cha>idelorY. Lopus, Cvo.3&cA. 



