The obtaining of the property must be accomplished by false representations, and must be actual and not constructive.122 It is the actual obtaining of the goods that constitutes the offense and not the making of the false representation.123 And to make out a case of false pretense it must appear that the owner of the property sustained a loss and was actually defrauded;124 but in some jurisdictions the contrary doctrine is held.125 The false representations must be made at or before the time of obtaining the property, for if made after, there can be no offense.126 The false representations may be made on one day, and the money or goods delivered at some future time without repeating the false statements at each particular delivery. This is on the theory that false pretense is a continuing offense.127 But if one makes a purchase of goods and pays for them, and at the time of such purchase, makes a false statement as to his financial circumstances, this false statement cannot be said to apply to future purchases on credit, without being repeated, unless such person knew that credit was given him solely on the faith of his false statements.128

121 State vs. Anderson, 47 Iowa, 142. 122 Watson vs. People, 27 Ill. App., 496; Jamison vs. State, 37

Ark., 435; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 852. 123 Com. vs. Van Tuyl, 1 Met.

(Ky.), 1. 124 People vs. Walkely, 62 Mich., 303; State vs. Clark, 46 Kan., 65; Drought vs. State, 101

Ga., 544.

125 May vs. State, 15 Tex. App., 436; State vs. Hanscom, 28 Or., 427; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 582.

126 State vs. Church, 43 Conn., 471; Com. vs. Devlin, 141 Mass., 423; People vs. Haynes, 14 Wend. (N. Y.), 546; State vs. Willard, 109 Mo., 242; State vs. Moore, 111 N. C, 672.

127 Com. vs. Lee, 149 Mass., 184; Rothschild vs. State, 13 Tenn., 294.