Skip to Content
Indiana University

Search Options


View Options


Table of Contents



Brevier Legislative Reports, Volume XXI, 1883, 311 pp.
previous
next

VERBAL FALSE PRETENSE.

Mr. Ernest's bill [S. 12] to define the crime of false pretense coming up in regular order, it was read the third time.

On motion of Mr. BROWN the emergency clause was stricken out.

Mr. HENRY opposed the passage of the bill, stating the proposed change is to allow any person to be convicted by making any false pretense, even under a verbal presentation, the law being now that it must be under a written pretense. He opposed allowing the criminal law to be used by persons to force the collection of a debt; as would be the case under an act such as proposed by this bill.

Mr. BELL favored the bill. It simply places the law back to where it was previous to 1881, and he regarded it as an omission by mistake. He saw no reason why the getting of money or goods by verbal false pretense should not be punishable. Another change proposed is imprisonment from one to seven instead of from two to ten, as now.

Mr FOULKE joined in the desire that the bill may pass. Under the present law a party can be punished only where the false pretense is written, while in the bill the punishment is also for oral false pretense. The fact a law may be abused is no reason why a good and salutary law should not be enacted. There is a hiatus in the present law that ought to be filled, and this will fill it.

Mr. GRAHAM has noticed that under the law of 1881 the people are left without remedy from a class of swindlers. He could conceive of no case where this bill would interfere with the rights of an honest man.

Mr. HENRY remembered this clause was left out of the code at the last session on purpose, and it ought to remain out. It persons would ask for the representation to be put in writing they can be protected under the law as it now is. The law is right as it stands, because the question of conviction is in writing and does not depend upon the testimony of persons who may be angry.

The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas, 33; nays, 13.

[Messrs. Spann and Voyles were appointed a Committee to invite Mexican soldiers to visit the Senate Chamber on motion of the former. ]

previous
next