case the king against MUNOES in a indictment on Henry c the false token by  which the imposition be effect must be set forth SC stram the defendant be  indict on the Henry c as a cheat for fraudulent get away from the plaintiff a  promissory note under pretence of get it endorse and pay by a person in the  next room which note the defendant get from the plaintiff by false token and  under colour and pretence that he will bring her the money for it whereas be  never bring the money nor return the note again modern er p upon this  indictment the defendant be find guilty and now move in arrest of judgement  and take two exception to the indictment first that it be not sufficient to  say in the indictment that the defendant make use of false token but it ought  to be specify in particular what those false token be which the defendant use  second that the use of word and promise only be not sufficient for a  indictment unless the defendant use some credential to deceive the plaintiff  as a false key c a letter or some other visible mark and of that opinion be  the court that it be necessary to lie in the indictment what the false token  be and that the make modern use of word only be not sufficient for a  indictment for the Act say false token or   letter judgement be order to be  stay see Com dig indictment g hawk p c ch S hawk p c ch king v mason term Rep  king v young term Rep a the defendant be find guilty upon a indictment which  be that the defendant come to a who have a promissory note of five hundred  pound pretend that he have a friend in the next room who will advance the  money for it whereas there be no such person there by mean of which false  token he defraud the say a of the note c and it be move in arrest of judgement  that it do not appear by the indictment that the defendant use any false token  and that a charge of use false token general be not sufficient the court take  time to consider of it and the last day of the term the chief justice deliver  the opinion of the court to this effect this be a indictment wherein the first  count set forth that the plaintiff be entitle to a promissory note of five  hundred pound and the defendant intend to defraud her of it pretend that he  have a friend in the next room who will discount it the second count charge  the offence to have be commit by mean of the say false token a motion have be  make in arrest of judgement and the exception be that the first count be but a  charge of false affirmation whereby he acquire the note and there be cite the  case of the king v Jones salk b report by Mr Salkeld which I take to be a true  account of that case and which agree with a manuscript I have see of that case  wherein be cite a like judgement the queen v Gratland easter term and c  wherein it be likewise hold that a false affirmation do not amount to a false  token but that appear to be confirm by the same fact in the other part of the  indictment and there be no other fact mention it come to this question whether  charge a man to come with false token general be sufficient without specify  they there be no case cite to warrant that general charge and I apprehend it  be not sufficient in a indictment to charge come with false token general it  be say in cro that a indictment charge any with a tort ought to be precise in  the point of the tort in young case   d where a will be charge to be give  daughter of the Sun pectus c it be hold to be too general c which show how  precise the fact which make the offence ought to be express in hale plea of  the crown it be say that any species of death of the same kind with that in  the indictment may be give in evidence this be only a general charge if  consider exclusive of the false affirmation and in lev where a information be  for be common perturbator peace c the modern charge be hold to be too general  though a general charge of barratry be good as common barectator other case  have be likewise cite as the king v Macarty the queen v eddy Hilary term Ann b  where one man personate another and pretend to be a soldier receive another  pay Lord hale say hale p c c if a come to b and by a false message or token  receive money of he it be a cheat punishable by indictment at commonlaw or  upon the statute Henry c but that be a very general say for it be certain that  a parole message or token by word of mouth only be not indictable upon the  statute Henry c unless he be understand to modern er p mean a message in write  for there must be a letter or some false token a bare affirmation be not  sufficient therefore upon these ground I think it proper that this judgement  shall be arrest