
    The State against Vaughan and Halcolm.
    by threats“of itUuiésJ the" 'ín i'udün»-°u kaí üí Obtaining horses from an ignorant «ountryman, bv threats of a Criminal prosecution for jaorse-sieal-
    THE prisoners were indicted under the swindling act.; for defrauding one Prester out of three horses of the value of sixty pounds.
    The facts in evidence were, that the prisoners some time in April, 1791, went to the house of the prosecutor, Prester, anc^ tohl him that one Halley, who lived up the country, ^ad during or shortly after the war, lost a mare, and sus-Pccted hint of having stolen her, and that they had comea considerable distance to endeavour to compromise the bush, ness, in order to prevent further trouble and expense, say» ing, that they had the affidavits of three persons, Rayner, ReesCy and Meeks, who had all sworn to the fact, adding, that unless he, Prestery would immediately settle the matter to their satisfaction, Halley would come down to the settlement and have his life, or full payment for the mare. Prestery who was a poor, ignorant, illiterate farmer, was much alarmed at this accusation against him, and being dreadfully apprehensive of a prosecution for. horse-stealing, which might ruin his reputation, as he understood three persons had sworn against him, (although he was conscious of his innocence,) and fearful also that Halley might put his threats into execution if he did nót comply, at first offered them a negro, which they refusedhe then offered them horses, which they at last agreed to accept; and he delivered to them three horses, of the value of sixty-pounds, for the purpose of accommodation. But upon the final settlement of this business, when Prester demanded the affidavits, they had them not to-produce, but gave him some kind of a writing, promising to procure the affidavits and deliver them up to him. They also delivered him a paper, purporting to be a bill of sale from Halley for the mare which they said had been stolen. Shortly afterwards, Prester, upon discovering that the whole was a plot, contrived in order to defraud him of his property, applied to •& 
      magistrate, and had these persons taken up, who it seems returned one horse, but had disposed of the others.
    Tn a toifri (k*vtlv Fug net* pr^si.*c*ilo i p¡u‘ly ¿nr h'd5 is u good vdVc tim . (*
    
    Upon the trial, Prester was called to give evidence of the facts ; but his testimony being objected to by the prisoners’ counsel, the court sustained the objection, as by the swindling act, the parties, in case of conviction, forfeited double the value of the property to the party aggrieved, xvhich was so far, in nature of a civil action: therefore, it would be permitting him to swear in his own cause.
    The facts, however, were fully proved by other wit* nesses.
    
      For the defendants, it was urged, that admitting the facts to be true, yet they did not bring this case within the swindling act9 The defendants were only the agents of Halley, who had lost a valuable mare ; Prester was supposed to have stolen her, and it was natural enough that Jialky should endeavour to get compensation for the loss j and obtaining a compensation did not prevent Halley from carrying on ¡the criminal prosecution against Préster for th& theft. So that neither the public justice of the country, .nor Prester himself, was injured by the transaction, pro» vided he had really stolen the mare ; and his offering satis» faction- so readily, was a strong presumption of his guilt.
    In support of the prosecution, the solicitor contended, that this was as evident a piece of swindling as ever was practised. Here were two men confederating together, going to the prosecutors house, trumping up an old tale of many years standing, pretending they h:>d affidavits which would establish this poor man a horse-thief, when in fact they had none, and throwing out threats that Halley would come down with a party and take his life, unless he com-, promised ,* all which were calculated to terrify him into any thing they proposed. Such a conduct came precisely with, in the meaning and intention of the act in question. The words were, “ any person who shall overreach, cheat, or a defraud, by any cunning, swindling acts and devices^ sc« "l that the ignorant or unwary may be deluded thereby, ouí. “ of their money or property, shall forfeit^” the words in this law were very comprehensive, and fully took in every part of the conduct of the prisoners, so as to bring them under the terms of the act. As to the de-fence set up, that was a mere shift or colourable pretext to elude justice; there was nothing to shew that these persons were authorised by Halley to act on his behalf; and the circumstance of their giving a paper under their hands, promising to procure the affidavits, shewed that they had made false representations in order to get the property out of Presteps bands.
   Bay, J.

was clearly of opinion that the conduct of these persons constituted the offence mentioned in the act against swindling, and charged the jury accordingly.

The jury brought in their verdict guilty.  