case the queen against Macarty and other if two man under the false pretence  of be the one a broker the other a winemerchant exchange a liquor which they  affirm to be new Lisbon wine with a hatter for hat whereas in truth the liquor  be to their knowledge only a mixture of stale beer and vinegar it be a  indictable offence SC ld ray indictment be against they for a imposition put  upon the prosecutor and cheat he in a parcel of pretend port wine upon  evidence the fact be that one of the defendant pretend himself to be a broker  and the other a Portuguese wine merchant come to the prosecutor be a hatter  and will bargain with he for a parcel of hat and proffer he a parcel of  Portuguese wine in exchange and upon this prevail with he to come and taste  the say wine which in truth be but stale beer mix with vinegar which  notwithstanding the defendant affirm to be Portuguese wine and hereupon a  bargain be strike and bat to the value of one hundred and eighteen pound  deliver for so many pipe of the say pretend wine and here the prosecutor be  the only witness and he be allow for a good witness by holt chief justice  because it be a cheat put upon his person and he compare it to parish case in  I side where if the recognizance have be forge the party himself can not be a  witness but may for a cheat put upon himself modern several exception be take  to the indictment first that it be lie that they deceitful bargain to barter  sell and exchange a certain quantity of pretend wine as good and true new  Lisbon wine c whereas this be not wine but all other liquor it shall have be  that they pretend this liquor to be new Lisbon wine and pretend it to be such  wine do deceitful bargain to barter c second that it be lie that upon the  barter sell and exchange aforesaid he the aforesaid Arthur Fordenborough  assumpsit super see to be a merchant of London and deal and merchandise as a  merchant in the wine of the kingdom of Portugal and then and there personate a  merchant of London at si be a real merchant of London whereas in truth c and  the assumpsit super see be improper for that be be promise and not pretend the  word at si be also improper for they signify but if which be nonsense it shall  have be ac si as if three it be lie quandan magnitude vines in a vineyard in  rows without show what quantity or of what price for which vide lev that the  very sum take in usury ought to be set down and that it be not enough to say  that be take above the lawful use fourthly it be not say that the defendant  know it not to be real wine it only say that the vinum pretensum be not vinum  royal power Portugaliae and he cite the yearbook of Henry the six Henry p a  and the case of king v foster Trinity term will b holt chief justice the crime  be not the sell one thing for another but here be a false token the one  pretend to be a broker and the other a merchant and a combination to cheat but  the exception seem weighty et adjournatur and be move again in Hilary term it  be hold that super see assumpsit be trader be well enough and the at si be  only surplusage but holt chief justice think the first exception fatal for  vinum pretensum may be yes vinum and pretensum be not the contrary of yes but  falsehood and where Powell justice think pretensum and falsehood to be the  same and quote the statute of maintenance of pretence title to prove his  opinion holt chief justice say in that very case the title of the disseizee  which without doubt be the true one be call pretensus titulus which show  pretensus and spit not to be contrary et adjournatur the case be argue again  in easter land the that of whether and in the Trinity term follow judgement be  give for the queen the court say that the quantity be not necessary to be show  and that there be enough set out to show the defendant to be cheat SC ld ray c  modern er p