The false representations necessary to constitute the offense of false pretense must relate to some past or existing fact, and not to something that shall happen in the future.129 A mere false promise not based upon a past or existing fact is not an offense.130 Thus, for example, it is not an offense if a man obtains money from a woman by inducing her to believe he intends to marry her and wants the money to purchase a wedding suit.131 So a mere breach of warranty is not an offense.132 But if the false representation as to some past or existing fact, and a false promise to do some act in the future are blended, and jointly acted upon by the person deceived and he parts with his property, the case is within the statute.133 So a written warranty given on the sale of property excluding any verbal representations does not preclude the showing of the actual state of facts; that is, the verbal statements are not merged in the writing.134

128 Broznack vs. State, 109 Ga., 514.

129 Com. vs. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.), 179; People vs. Murphy, 100 Cal., 84; Holton vs. State, 109 Ga., 127; Com. vs. Moore, 89 Ky., 542; State vs. King 67 N. H., 219; Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 439; 1 McClain Cr. Ev., Sec. 678; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 604.

180 People vs. Blanchard, 90 Ky., 314; State vs. DeSay, 93 Mo., 98; Com. vs. Stevenson, 127 Mass., 446; State vs. Knott, 124 N. C, 814.

131 Reg. vs. Johnson, 2 Moo., C. 254.

132 People vs. Tompkins, 1 Park Cr. (N. Y.), 238; Jackson vs. People, 18 Ill. App., 513; State vs. Chum, 19 Mo., 233.

133 Holton vs. State, 109 Ga., 127; Watson vs. People, 87 N. Y., 561; Reg vs. Jones, 6 Cox, C. C., 467; Donahue vs. State, 59 Ark., 377; State vs. Con., 33 Me., 498; Boscow vs. State, 33 Tex. Cr., 390.

134Jackson vs. People, 126 111., 414.