
    State v. Simpson.
    I From Carteret. J
    The act of 1811 concerning the use of false tokens or pretences, re» quires that the cheat should be accomplished by means of some token or false contrivance calculated to impose on the credulity of or» dinary men; a mere lie was not in the contemplation of the Legis» lature.
    Indictment in the following words, viz.
    The jurors for the state upon their oath present, that Absalom Simpson, late of the county of Carteret and state of North Carolina, on the sixth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, with force and arms, in the county and state aforesaid, Unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, did falsely pretend to one Mitchell W. Finer, that the said Absalom wished to see a certain judgment which he the said Mitchell had obtained against him the said Absalom, before George Gillikin,-esquire, one of the Justices of the Peace for the county of Carteret, and that he the said Absalom wished to see said judgment for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due ihereon, and for the purpose of paying the same to the said Mitchell; by which said false pretences, he the said Absalom then and there,. to wit»on the said sixth day of .June» m the tear one tmusand eight hundred and twenty-four, at the county and state aforesaid, un’.avfn1» ly, knowingly and designedly, did obtain from the said Vlitci-eli, the judgment aforesaid of the value of one poir d ten shillings, of the goods and chattels of said Mitchell, with an intent then avid there to cheat and defraud him the said .Mitchell; whereas in truth and in fact, he the said Absalom did not wish to ascertain the-amount due on said judgment, and whereas in truth and in fact the said Absalom did not wish and intend to pay the amount so due to said Mitchell on said judgment, to t.he great damage and deception of said Muche.ll. to the evil example of all others in like case offending, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided,and against the peace and dignity of the state.
    The case stood before this Court on the appeal of the state from the judgment below for the defendant.
    
      Badger, for the defendant.
    The indictment cannot be supported. 1. A justice’s judgment is not within the act of 1811, upon which this charge is framed. It is not enumerated among the securities mentioned in the act, either expressly, or by any words which will include it; it is not “ money, goods, property or other thing of value,” for these words “thing of value,” must be expounded with reference to those which go before, and therefore must signify a thing possessing intrinsic value,
    2. The false pretence set forth in the indictment, by which the judgment was procured, is not a sufficient pre-tence within the statute. A false pretence means not a •mere tie, which it is an act of folly to credit, but such a contrivance as is calculated to lull suspicion, and impose pn prudence. (2 East Cr. Law, title Cheat.)
    
    The. pretence here set forth is a mere naked lie, and not sufficient.
   Henderson, Judge.

I concur with the judge of the Superior Court, that there should bejudgmentfor the defendant; for whatever may have been the construction of the statute of George, in relation to false pretences, (aud I think even that statute would not extend to this case,) our own statute under which this defendantis indicted, requires that the cheat should have been effected by means of some token, or some false contrivance. calculated to impose upon the credulity of ordinary men: for if a cheat practised by a jjare anrj naked lie was designed to be brought within the statute why insert in the specifications, false writings, tokens, &c. or why insert any specifications at all? The words “ any false pretence whatever,” must therefore mean, pretences of the like kind, something more than a naked lié. something of the same family with those specified. To read the statute otherwise, would be making the legislature insert the specifications for no purpose, or something more than no purpose, to wit, to puzzle and perplex.

The general words were enacted from a consciousness of an inability to enumerate every device which the knavery and ingenuity of man might devise. All such as were of the kind enumerated were intended to he included, and none other. It is not good policy to call in the aid of the criminal law whenever a person has received an injury; one which common prudence might have guarded against.

The Chief Justice and Judge Hair assented:

So; by the Court, Judgment affirmed.  