State v. Luxton

• Decision Date: 04 March 1901
• Citation: 48 A. 535,65 N.J.L. 605
• Parties: STATE v. LUXTON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

48 A. 535

65 N.J.L. 605

STATE

v. LUXTON.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 4, 1901.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to court of quarter sessions, Hudson county.

George I. Luxton was convicted for obtaining money by false pretenses. From a judgment of the supreme court (46 Atl. 1101) affirming the conviction, he brings error. Affirmed.

McEwan & McEwan, for plaintiff in error.

James S. Erwin, for the State.

DIXON, J. The Indictment in this case was for obtaining money under false pretenses. The pretenses set forth were that the defendant was the owner in fee simple of a certain lot of land, and that his title was unincumbered by mortgage or other Hen or claim whatsoever; and the falsity of these pretenses was alleged in the following words: "Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said [defendant] was not then and there owner in fee simple of the said lot nor was his title then and there unincumbered by mortgage or other Hen or claim, as he then and there well knew." At the trial it was proved by the state that the defendant, when he made the alleged pretenses, was the owner in fee simple of the lot, and therefore the question now raised by the defendant as to the sufficiency of the indictment concerns only the pretense as to incumbrances. We think that on this point the indictment lacks proper certainty. The general rule is that the indictment must state the facts of the crime with as much certainty as the nature of the case will reasonably admit (People v. Gates, 13 Wend. 311), and that an indictment for false pretenses should negative the pretenses by such specific averments as will give the defendant notice of what he is to prepare to defend (8 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 880). Although usually it is sufficient for the indictment to aver that the alleged pretense was false, yet when the pretense is a mere general negation, the falsity of which can be shown only by proof of a specific fact, that fact ought to be set forth, in order to comply more fully with the constitutional requirement that the defendant shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The allegation in this indictment that the pretense that the land was unincumbered was false gave the defendant no information on which he could prepare to refute the evidence of any incumbrance which the state might attempt to prove. In State v. Long, 103 Ind. 481, 3 N. E. 109, where the false pretense was that the defendant held certain stock unincumbered, the indictment set out the particular incumbrances to which the stock was subject. This degree of certainty is always attainable in similar cases, and is therefore required by law. But, notwithstanding...