142 



FKAUDULENT CONTEACTS. 



Conspiring to 

 obtain money 

 by false 

 pretences. 



Conspiring to 

 induce a 

 creditor to 

 forego his 

 claim. 



Where only 

 one person 

 cheats, an 

 action Mes. 



Chandelor v. 

 Lopiis. 



horse, in which transaction the latter was again defrauded. 

 Some evidence was given to show that A. was frequently 

 in company with some of the other defendants, and that he 

 was aware of a previous sale of the glandered horse by 

 them, but there was no other evidence to connect him with 

 its sale to M. It was held by Mr. Justice CressweU, that 

 in the absence of any evidence clearly leading to the con- 

 clusion that A. was a party to that sale, [there was no 

 evidence of a conspiracy to go to the jury against him {g). 

 Where 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 property of 

 her sister, that they had never been the propertj' of a 

 horse-dealer, and were quiet and tractable, all of which 

 was absolutely false, the defendants were found guilty of 

 conspiring to obtain money by false pretences, as they knew 

 that nothing but a fuU 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 daughter's use (h). 



An indictment lies for conspiracy, where persons have 

 conspired 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 '271., to 

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

 39/., and thereby to defraud S. of 12/. («"). 



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 (/). But if it be such an offence, as, if practised by 

 two, would be the subject of an indictment for a con- 

 spiracy, the vendor is civilly liable in an action for repara- 

 tion of damages at the suit of the purchaser, because col- 

 lusion is not necessary to constitute fraud (k). 



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

 subject of fraudulent representation. It was an action on 

 the case against a jeweller for selKng a jewel, affirming it 



(j) Rex V. TFheathi, 2 Burr. 

 1128. 



(g) Seg. y. Read, 6 Cox, C. C. 



135. 



(A) Reg. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 63. (k) Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T R 



(i) R. V. Carlisle, 23 L. J.,M. C. 58 ; 1 E. R. 634. ' ' 



109. (J) Chandelor y. Lopus, Cro. Jac. 4. 



