During the trail, the prosecution is liable to produce sufficient evidence against the culprit, and it has to be proven that misrepresentation was false, but that the thief knew of the falsity. The opinions and puffing are not included in false pretense. False Pretense also includes the shift of title. In the case of larceny by trick, the culprit deceives to deprive the owner of possession, not title. Therefore false pretense is taken much different from larceny by trick, and the implication is taken separately.

False Pretense is basically treated as an act of Theft. The act of false pretense is applied to the defendant, who obtained any chattel, money or valuable security from any other person with intent to defraud.

QUESTION # 3

The act of trespass is legal offence with an intention to spy, rob or cause damage. Trespass is going beyond the limit of what is considered right or moral. The act of entering other's land or property, without the permission or right. The encroachment of property is considered as an act of trespass. According to U.S. law, an illegal act done forcefully against another's person rights, or property. The law supports and encourages the adoption of strict measures against trespass, performed with intentions to cause damage to the property.

The act of trespass has different interpretation. One interpretation is with reference to entering secret or restricted area with the intentions of trying...

The civil laws discourage such intentions and practices, because such act of trespass violates the privacy of the prosecutor.
Individual found involved in trespass is liable to punishment, however the nature of punishment can only be determined if the defendant can expose his intentions with sound proof, and the prosecutor doesn't expect any severe danger from that action. However, if the prosecutor is able to prove the defendant's ulterior motives of criminal nature, than serious sentence is awarded.

Trespass is considered criminal violation, if the defendant intentionally tried to bypass the zone, knowing that the area is restricted. However if the defendant without knowing the restriction, enters the location, the defendant needs to prove his innocence. This can be only achieved if the prosecutor is realized that the defendant and his action will bring no serious consequences of the area. It is civil wrong, because ethics demands protection and sanctity of privacy. Therefore an individual should not enter any such location unless allowed or permitted, and it is important if consent is sought before entrance.