Definition
In criminal pleading, "getting" is an acceptable substitute for "obtaining" in an indictment charging the offense of obtaining money or property under false pretenses. The substitution does not render the indictment defective or void for insufficiency of language.
The principle reflects a broader rule of criminal pleading: where common words carry equivalent meaning, technical insistence on a single preferred term will not defeat an otherwise sufficient charging instrument.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The act of obtaining or acquiring; acquisition. Also, that which is obtained; gain or profit.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of obtaining or acquiring; acquisition. Also, that which is got or obtained; gain; profit.
The common and legal meanings are essentially continuous here. The legal significance of the term is not in its definition but in its procedural status — whether its appearance in an indictment satisfies formal pleading requirements. A researcher encountering "getting" in a charging document should understand the question is one of pleading sufficiency, not of substantive meaning.
Why It Matters in Research
This entry is a narrow pleading-sufficiency point, not a substantive legal concept. Researchers are most likely to encounter it when reviewing historical indictments or when tracing common-law pleading rules governing variance between the language of a charging instrument and the statutory language of the offense charged.
The underlying principle — that synonymous or equivalent words in an indictment will not defeat the charge — appears throughout nineteenth and early twentieth century criminal pleading cases and treatises. Bouvier's citation to a 1913 Kentucky appellate decision places this squarely in the era when courts were actively adjudicating the boundaries of technical pleading requirements against a growing preference for liberal construction of indictments.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should note: this term will rarely appear as a standalone legal concept. It surfaces instead as a resolved question within a larger discussion of false pretenses pleading, indictment sufficiency, or criminal procedure reform. If your research involves historical indictments or early statutory fraud offenses, checking cases involving pleading variance — not just the substantive elements of the offense — is essential.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the sole historical dictionary source for this entry, and its treatment is pointed and narrow: one proposition, one citation. The entry does not purport to define "getting" as a term of art but simply notes its pleading equivalence to "obtaining."
No divergence among historical sources is available to assess, as no other dictionary in the shelf treats this term. The absence of treatment in other standard legal dictionaries (Black's, Burrill, Stroud) likely reflects the term's status as a resolved pleading curiosity rather than a contested legal concept requiring sustained doctrinal attention.
Jurisdictional Note
The cited authority is Kentucky (1913). The general principle of liberal construction of indictment language to avoid defeat on mere verbal technicality became widespread across American jurisdictions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but specific holdings on "getting" versus "obtaining" may not have been litigated or reported in all states.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See: Obtaining Under False Pretenses; Indictments — Sufficiency and Pleading Requirements