(Dissenting)
By indictment the respondent has been accused of the crime of cheating by false pretenses. R. S. (1954), c. 133, § 11. He demurred to the indictment. The trial justice overruled the demurrer. Respondent excepts to that ruling.
The indictment in presently essential text reads as follows: (partition of clauses, ours)
“----that Raoul J. Binette---feloniously designedly and with an intent to defraud, did falsely pretend to one LUCIEN M. BOURQUE, that he, the said Raoul J. Binette,---Clerk of the City ---had through the color of his office, been one of the persons who had worked very hard to get the new Biddeford High School project started,
and
that he would like to have something to compensate him for the work that he and others had done for him with reference to the school project, in his said capacity,-----and
that he should have and receive moneys as a donation for the Democratic Party;
whereas in truth and in fact,
the said Raoul Binette, in his said capacity as City Clerk---by virtue of his office or otherwise, did not in any respect, do anything to aid or assist the *235said Lucien M. Bourque with reference to the school project,
nor did he perform any services with reference to any of the Committees in charge of building the new High School to entitle him to be compensated for the work that he and others had done for him, the said Lucien M. Bourque, to obtain any work for the site preparation in preparing the ground for the new Biddeford High School,
all of which the said Raoul J. Binette, then and there, well knew,
which said false pretenses were believed to be true, and relied upon by the said Lucien M. Bourque,
and
he was thereby deceived and induced to pay over and deliver and did, then and there, pay over and deliver to the said Raoul J. Binette, the following sums of money,-----and the said Raoul J. Binette, thereby solely and by means of said false pretenses, as aforementioned, did, then and there, feloniously, designedly and with the intent to defraud, obtain from the said Lucien M. Bourque, at the various times, dates and in the amounts, as aforementioned, a sum of money---of the property of said Lucien M. Bourque---”
R. S., c. 133, § 11, as pertinent here, is as follows:
“Whoever, designedly, and by any false pretence or privy or false token and with intent to defraud, obtains from another any money, goods or other property,-----is guilty of cheating by false pretences and shall be punished----”
The indictment inceptively narrates that the respondent falsely pretended to Lucien M. Bourque that the respondent:
“---had---been one of the persons who had worked very hard to get the new Biddeford High School project (planned undertaking) started.”
*236Nevertheless the indictment fails to negate directly and specifically and as false, the foregoing “pretense.” The imputation is thus unendowed with the properties of a legal incrimination and is legally annulled. Rex v. Perrott, 2 Maule & Selwyn, 379; Pattee v. State, 109 Ind. 545, 10 N. E. 421, 422; Burnley v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 117 S. W. (2nd) 1008; People v. Cooper, 229 N. Y. S. 748, 750; Campfield v. State (Ohio), 103 N. E. (2nd) 661; Wharton’s Criminal Law, 12th ed., Vol. 2, § 1493, P. 1765; 35 C. J. S., False Pretenses, § 42, c, P. 874; Beale, Criminal Pleading & Practice, § 196, P. 214.
The indictment charges the respondent with having falsely pretended to Bourque as a fact that work had been done by the respondent and others for Bourque with reference to the school project. This latter representation so attributed to the respondent the indictment does specifically and directly assert to be false:
“----in truth and in fact, the said Raoul Binette ---did not in any respect, do anything to aid or assist the said Lucien M. Bourque with reference to the school project----”
The indictment by this stated pretense of work done by the respondent for Bourque with reference to the school project, by the direct negation of the truth of such pretense and by those allegations leveled after the clause, “all of which the said Raoul J. Binette, then and there well knew,” etc., present in passing clarity and in legal sufficiency and with adequate protection against double jeopardy an accusation that the respondent had violated the statute prescribing cheating by false pretenses.
“----a single false pretence properly alleged in the indictment, and proved as laid, is sufficient to warrant a conviction---” Com. v. Morrill, 8 Cush. 571, 574.
*237The respondent assails the validity of the indictment in that it avers that Binette’s solicitation of money was made upon behalf of the political party and not for his own pecuniary benefit and because the indictment neither represents nor indicates that Binette became personally enriched. Respondent’s contention is to no purpose or avail. The gravamen of the offense imputed would be unaffected by proof that the respondent or the political party was the actual beneficiary. Commonwealth v. Harley, 7 Met. 462, 466; Commonwealth v. Langley, 169 Mass. 89, 95, 47 N. E. 511; 35 C. J. S., False Pretenses, § 25. I would overrule the exceptions.
Williamson, C. J., joins in this opinion.