said piece of false and counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit ; against the form.... .Archbold, 753.

Prove the tendering, uttering or putting off the sovereign in question, and prove it to be a base and counterfeit sovereign. Where a good shilling was given to a Jew boy for fruit, and he put it into his mouth under pretence of trying whether it were good, and then taking a bad shilling out of his mouth instead of it, returned it to the prosecutor, saying that it was not good; this (which is called ringing the changes) was holden to be an uttering, indictable as such.-R. vs. Franks, 2 Leach, 644; Archbold, 753. The giving of a piece of counterfeit money in charity is not an uttering, although the person may know it to be counterfeit; as in cases of this kind, there must be some intention to defraud.—Reg. vs. Page, 8 C. and P. 122. But this case has been overruled. -Reg. vs. Ion, 2 Den, 484; 1 Russell, 126. (See sect. 14 of the Forgery Act, and remarks thereon.)

A prisoner went into a shop, asked for some coffee and sugar, and in payment put down on the counter a counterfeit shilling: the prosecutor said that the shilling was a bad one; whereupon the prisoner quitted the shop, leaving the shilling and also the coffee and sugar: held that this was an uttering and putting off within the statute.-Reg. vs. Welch, 2 Den. 78; 4 Cox, 430. The prisoner and J. were indicted for a misdemeanor in uttering counterfeit coin. The uttering was effected by J. in the absence of the prisoner, but the jury found that they were both engaged on the evening on which the uttering took place, in the common purpose of uttering counterfeit shillings, and that in pursuance of that common purpose, J. uttered the coin in question: held, that the pri

soner was rightly convicted as a principal, there being no accessories in a misdemeanor.-Reg. vs. Greenwood, 2 Den. 453; 5 Cox, 521. If two jointly prepare counterfeit coin, and utter it in different shops apart from each other but in concert, intending to share the proceeds, the utterings of each are the joint utterings of both, and they may be convicted jointly.-Reg. vs. Hurse, 2 M. and Rob. 360.

R. vs. Else, R. & R. 142; Reg. vs. Manners, 7 C. & P. 801; R. vs. Page, 9 C. & P. 756; 2 Mood, 219; R. vs. Jones, 2 Mood, 85, are not law. Archbold, 754. Husband and wife were jointly indicted for uttering counterfeit coin: held, that the wife was entitled to an acquittal, as it appeared that she uttered the money in the presence of her husband.-R. vs. Price, 8 C. & P. 19. A wife went from house to house uttering base coin: her husband accompanied her but remained outside: held, that the wife acted under her husband's compulsion.-Conolley's case, 2 Lewin, 229. Sarah McGinnes was indicted for uttering counterfeit coin. It appeared that at the time of the commission of the offence, she was in company with a man who went by the same name, and who was convicted of the offence at the last assizes. When the prisoners were taken into custody the police constable addressed the female prisoner as the male prisoner's wife. The male prisoner denied the fact, (of her being his wife) in the hearing and presence of the woman. Sarah McGinnes since her committal had been confined of a child: held, per Byles, J., that, under the circumstances, although the woman had not pleaded her coverture, and even although she had not asserted she was married to the male prisoner, when he stated she was not his wife, it was a question for the jury whether, taking the birth of the

child and the whole circumstances, there was not evidence of the marriage, and the jury thought there was, and acquitted her, as being under the influence of her husband, when she uttered the coin.-Reg. v. McGinnes, 11 Cox, 391.

Proof of the guilty knowledge by the defendant must be given. This of course must be done by circumstantial evidence. If, for instance, it be proved that he uttered, either on the same day or at other times, whether before or after the uttering charged, base money, either of the same or of a different denomination, to the same or to a different person, or had other pieces of base money about him when he uttered the counterfeit money in question; this will be evidence from which the jury, may presume a guilty knowledge.- Archbold, 754; 1 Russell, 127.

Indictment for having in possession counterfeit gold or silver coin with intent, &c., &c., &c. . . . . unlawfully, falsely and deceitfully had in his custody and possession four pieces of false and counterfeit coin, resembling the current silver coin called......with intent to utter the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin, he the said J. S. then well knowing the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin to be false and counterfeit; against....

Archbold, 757.-See remarks under sections 9 and 10. As to what constitutes the having in possession, see sect. 1, interpretation clause. As to fining the offender and require him to give sureties, in any cases of misdemeanor under this act, see ante, sect. 34, under sect. 2.

As to solitary confinement, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29, s. 94.

B

UTTERING, &C., AFTER A PREVIOUS CONVICTION SHALL

BE FELONY.

Sect. 12.-Whosoever having been convicted, either before or after the passing of this Act, of any such misdemeanor as in any of the last three preceding sections mentioned, or of any misdemeanor or felony against this or any former Act heretofore in force in Canada, or in any of the Provinces thereof, relating to the coin, afterwards commits any of the misdemeanors in any of the said sections mentioned, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.-Sect. 12, Imp. Act.

In the English Statute, the mode of proceeding on a subsequent offence, after a previous conviction, under the Coin Act, is given by sect. 37 of this Act. In Canada, we have the same clause, applying to all trials, generally, of a subsequent offence, after a previous conviction, and for which a greater punishment may be inflicted on that account, viz.: sect. 26, 32–33 Vict., ch. 29, (Procedure Act, 1869.) It is exactly in the same terms as the corresponding clause of the English Statute, on offences relating to the coin. The English Larceny Act, sect. 116, .re-enacts it. See Greaves' observations on this last clause; also Archbold, 364, 755. More observations on the question will be found in the Annotations on sect. 26 of the Procedure Act of 1869.

Upon the trial of an indictment for the felony of having committed a misdemeanor, within either of sections 9, 10, or 11 of 24-25 Vict., ch. 99, relating to the unlaw

ful possession and uttering of counterfeit coin after a previous conviction for a misdemeanor within those sections, the prisoner must be arraigned upon, and evidence respecting the subsequent offence must first be submitted to the jury, and the previous conviction must not be inquired into until after the verdict on the charge of the subsequent offence.-Regina vs. Martin, 11 Cox, 343; R. vs. Goodwin, 10 Cox, 534, overruled. In Reg. vs. Martin, Lush, J., admitted that he was in error, in the case mentioned at p. 757 of Archbold, Cr. Pl.

UTTERING

FOREIGN COIN, MEDALS, &C., WITH INTENT

TO DEFRAUD.

Sect. 13.-Whosoever, with intent to defraud, tenders, utters, or puts off, as or for any current gold or silver coin, any coin not being such current gold or silver coin, or any medal or piece of metal or mixed metals, resembling in size, figure and colour the current coin, as or for which the same is so tendered, uttered, or put off, such coin, medal or piece of metal or mixed metals so tendered, uttered or put off, being of less value than the current coin as or for which the same is so tendered, uttered or put off, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement, other than a penitentiary, for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.-Sect. 13 Imp. Act.

An indictment for the offences against this section may be readily framed from the preceding forms.-See observations under sect. 2, for fine, sureties and solitary confinement.

A person was convicted, under the above section, of putting off, as and for a half sovereign, a medal of the