What a false making or altering. Before publication. Publication with knowledge. Fraudulent insertion, alteration, or erasure. Expunging i ndorsement. Altering figures. Though the alteration make the instrument ungrammatical. The very making, with a fraudulent intent and without lawful authority, of any instrument which at common law or by statute is the subject of forgery, is of itself a sufficient completion of the offence, even before publication, and of consequence before any actual injury sustained; for though publication be the medium by which the intent is usually made manifest, yet it may be proved as plainly by other evidence. And by the statute law the publication, with knowledge of the fact, is for the most part made a substantive offence. 2 East's P. C. 855. Making a fraudulent insertion, alteration, or erasure, in any material part of a true instrument, although in a letter only, and even if it be afterwards executed by another person, he not knowing of the deceit; or the fraudulent application of a true signature to a false instrument for which it was not intended, or vice versa, are as much forgeries as if the whole instrument had been fabricated; for any such alteration gives it a new operation ; as by altering the date of a bill of exchange after acceptance, whereby the payment was accelerated. 2 East's P. Č. 855. Master v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320. Expunging an indorsement on a bank note with a certain liquor (lemon juice) unknown to the jury, was holden to be a rasing within stat. 8&9 W. 3. c. 20. § 36. (now repealed). R. v. Bigg, 3 P. Wms. 419. So is altering the amount of the sum for which a note, &c. is made (e. g. the figure of 2 to 5, or 10 to 50). Dawson's case and Teague's case, 2 East's P. C. 978, 979. Even though the alteration be made by the addition of a cypher; as in Elsworth's case, where the O being added after the figure 8, the bill, which was for Sl., became a bill for 80l. Elsworth's case, York Lent Ass. 1780, 2 East's P. C. 986. Dyson Post's case, C. C. R. 101. Dyson Post was tried before Grose J. at Bury Lent Assizes 1806, upon an indictment for altering a banker's promissory note for one pound, into a promissory note for ten pound. It was proved that the note in question was a promissory note of the Thetford bank, dated 5th December, 1803, for one pound, and that the prisoner being in possession of it, got some thin paper, like paper on which bankers' notes are written, of the size of the note, and pasted it on the back of it with yeast, then cut out the word one in the body of the note, and the word one at the corner, and by removing the paper pasted, introduced into the place of the word one, the word ten at each part of the paper; by this means the note, which was a note for one pound, became a note importing to be a promissory note for ten pound, having in the body the word ten pound, and at the corner ten. It was then proved that on the same day, he being a butcher, paid it to a farmer, Edward Hensby, for some sheep he had purchased from him. Upon this proof, it was objected by the prisoner's counsel, that upon this indictment he could not be convicted, as this was not altering or adding to, or forging a promissory note for money, it being when altered not a promissory note to pay ten pounds, but ten pound in the singular number, which was ungrammatical, uncertain, and nonsense. -The learned judge left it to the jury to consider whether they believed the evidence given, and that the note was altered by the prisoner, and negotiated by him as a note for ten pounds, for the purpose of defrauding either the bankers, or Edward Hensby, to whom it was paid, of that sum.- The prisoner was found guilty, and the question in E. T. 1806 submitted to the judges, who (absente Ld. Ellenborough C. J.) held the conviction right. And, upon the principle that the false making of any part of a genuine note, which may give it a greater currency, is forgery; it was holden in a modern case, that where a note of country bankers was made payable at their house in the country, or at their banker's in London, and the London banker had failed, it was forgery to alter the name of such London banker to the name of another London banker, with whom the country bankers had made their notes payable subsequently to the failure. The judges held that the act done by the prisoner was a false making, in a circumstance material to the value of the note, and its facility of transfer, by making it payable at a solvent instead of an insolvent house. N. B. The alteration was effected by pasting a slip of paper, bearing the words "Ramsbottom & Co." over the words "Bloxam & Co." in the same manner as the prosecutors had altered their re-issuable notes after the failure of the first London bankers, Blozam & Co. R. v. Treble, 2 Taunt. 328. 2 Leach, 1040. C. C. R. 164. In a country bank note, changing the name of the London banker. alteration. In Kinder's case, Nottingham Sum. Ass. 1800, cor. Rooke J., it Forgery, and a appeared that the prisoner procured a deed to be forged from subsequent J. M. and his son, conveying an estate for life to Mary Kinder, and that after the death of one of the supposed grantors, he procured the forged deed to be altered, by enlarging the grantee's estate to a fee: he was convicted of forging and uttering it in the state to which it was so altered; and it was holden by all the judges that the conviction was proper; for it was no less a forgery after than before such alteration. MS. C. C. R. 2 East's P. C. 856. S. C. Aliter, pretending to be a party named in instrument. But it is not forgery to pass for the person whose indorsement is on the bill, and thereby to obtain credit in the name of another; for in such a case it is not a false making. It is, however, an indictable offence within stat. 30 G. 2. c. 24 (a), for using a false pretence. Hevey's case, O. B. Jan. 1782, 2 East's P. C. 856. It is forgery, however, for a person, having the same name as the payee of a bill of exchange, and knowing that he is not the real person in whose favour it was drawn, to indorse it with intent to defraud, &c. Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 29. R. v. Parkes & Brown, 2 Russ. 321, et sequ. So, making a false instrument, which is the subject of forgery, So, accrediting though in the name of a non-existing person, is as much a forgery as if it had been made in the name of one who is known to exist, Indorsing in person's own name may be forgery. an instrument with the name of a non-exist and to whom credit was due. Anne Lewis's case, Fost. 116.; ing person. and G. Wilks's case, Bodmin, 1767, 2 East's P. C. 957, 958.; and Taft's case, 2 East's P. C. 959. To cause, is to procure or counsel one to forge; to assent, is to give his assent or agreement afterwards to the procurement or counsel of another; to consent, is to agree at the time of the of counsel, and such is in law a procurer. 3 Inst. 169. procurement (a) Or rather under 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 29., 30 G. 2. c. 24. being now repealed. Causing, assenting, and procuring. Instrument in valid, but seem ing good. Will of a living person. Forgery of a bill of exchange on unstamped paper. R. v. Morton. Unstamped receipt not evi dence to support under 39 G. 3. But Ld. Hale says, that an assent after the fact is committed makes not the party assenting guilty, or principal in the forging; but it must be a precedent or concomitant assent. 1 Hale, 684. It seems to be no way material, whether a forged instrument be made in such a manner as, were it true, it would be of validity or not. 1 Haw. c. 70. § 7. But Mr. East, 2 P. C. 948., is of opinion that this must be understood where the false instrument bears on the face of it the semblance of that for which it is counterfeited, and is not illegal in its very frame. Upon this ground it hath been adjudged that the forgery of a protection in the name of a member of parliament, who in truth at the time was not a member, is as much a crime as if he were. R. v. Deakins, 1 Sid. 142. So it was held a capital offence within the stat. 2 G. 2. c. 25. (now repealed), to forge the last will of a person who is living, and yet such an instrument never could operate as a will in contemplation of law, during the lifetime of the supposed testator. R. v. Coogan, 2 East's P. C. 948. 1 Leach, 448. So forgery may be committed of a bill of exchange on unstamped paper. Hawkeswood's case, 1 Leach, 257. 2 East's P. C. 955. Hawkeswood being indicted for forgery of a bill of exchange, it was objected, that not being stamped it was no bill of exchange by the stat. 22 G. 3. c. 33., and prior acts; and that this was an objection apparent upon the face of it. But, as the stamp act was merely a revenue law, and did not profess in any way to alter the crime of forgery; and as the false instrument had the semblance of a bill of exchange, and was negotiated by the prisoner as such, Buller J., before whom he was tried, overruled the objection, but respited judgment. And in Easter term 1783, all the judges were of opinion that the prisoner was properly convicted; for the stamp act, in saying that a bill without a stamp shall not be pleaded or given in evidence or be available in law or equity, means only that it shall not be made use of to recover the debt; and, besides, the holder might get it stamped after it was made. The same point was afterwards ruled by all the judges in R. v. Morton (York Sum. Ass. 1795), 2 East's P. C. 955., after the passing of the stat. 31 G. 3. c. 25., which prohibits the affixing of the stamp afterwards. R. v. Hall, Lanc. Sum. Ass. 1821, 3 Stark. C. N. P. 67. Indictment against Hall, under stat. 39 G.3. c. 85., for feloniously embezzling six bank notes, which he had received into his possession as a clerk in the employment of Messrs. H. and Co. of Liverpool, for and on account of his masters. A debtor to the prosecutors having been called as a witness for the prosecution, evidence was offered of a receipt given by the prisoner on receiving this money from the debtor. The sum received exceeded 40s., and the receipt was on plain paper. It was objected for the prisoner that this receipt could not be given in evidence for want of a stamp ; for the crown it was insisted that the revenue laws had no application to criminal cases; and R. v. Pooley, East's P. C. Add. xvii., R. v. Coogan, East's P. C. 948., R. v. Hawkeswood, 1 Leach, C. C. 295. East's P. C. 955., R. v. Morton, R. v. Reculist, R. v. Davis, ib. were cited; but Bayley J. was of opinion that the receipt was not admissible in evidence for want of a stamp, and the evidence was rejected. Mr. Starkie (who was - of counsel for the prisoner) adds, the distinction between the present case, and those cited, seems to be, that in the former the offence of forgery was complete, whether the instrument was or was not stamped. No operation, therefore, was given to an unstamped instrument by receiving the forged bill or note in evidence; but in the present case the instrument offered in evidence was collateral to the principal felony, and was offered for the very purpose for which by the stamp laws it is made unavailable; i. e. to prove the payment and receipt of the money. The forgery of a Prussian treasury note for the payment of a dollar was held to be within 43 G. 3. c. 139. § 1., the instrument purporting, on the face of it, to be an undertaking or order for the payment of money; and it was ruled, that it need not possess those technical properties required by our own municipal law. Judgment was, however, arrested, because the note was set out in a foreign language, and the indictment contained no translation of it into English. R. v. Goldstein, C. C. R. 473. N.B. 43 G. 3. c. 139. § 1. is now repealed. c. 66. § 30. But see 1 W. 4. But in these cases it is necessary that the forged instrument should in all essential parts have upon the face of it the similitude of a true one; so that it be not radically defective and illegal in the very frame of it. 2 East's P. C. 952. Therefore, where T. Wall was convicted upon an indictment for forging and knowingly uttering a will of land of one J. S., attested by only two witnesses, and it did not appear in evidence what estate the supposed testator had in the land so devised, or of what nature it was; it was objected that non constat but that the land was freehold, and therefore the will void by the express words of the statute of frauds (29 Car. 2. c. 3. § 5.) for want of the attestation of three witnesses. The judges on a conference in E. T. 1800, held the conviction wrong; for as it was not shewn to be a chattel interest, it was to be presumed to be freehold. Wall's case, Worcester Sp. Ass. 1800, cor. Thomson B., 2 East's P. C. 953. So in R. v. Moffatt (O. B. Jan. 1787) it was decided by all the So an invalid judges, that forgery of a bill of exchange, as such, cannot be bill of exchange. committed when it is drawn for more than 20s. and less than 5. without mentioning the place of abode of the payee, and having a subscribing witness thereto; for want of which circumstances it is declared by stat. 17 G. 3. c. 30. § 1. (a) that such a note is abso- 17G. 3. c. 30. lutely void. Moffatt's case, 2 East's P. C. 954. 1 Leach, 431. Bayl. 439. If any person which writeth the will of a sick man inserteth a Inserting clause clause therein concerning the devise of lands without any direction in a will. of the devisor, this is forgery, although he did not forge the whole will. 3 Inst. 170. R. v. Japhet Crooke, 2 Str. 901. Fitzg. 57. 261. 2 East's P. C. 921. The defendant was convicted on an indictment which stated that Garbut and his wife were seised in fee of certain messuages, lands, and tenements called Jawick, in the parish of Clacton, in (a) By stat. 48 G. 3. c. 88. all promissory or other notes, bills of exchange, or drafts, &c. being negotiable for less than 20s., are declared absolutely void. See tit. Promissory Notes. Crooke's case. On an indictment for forgery of a deed of conveyance, it is sufficient if the party may be molested in his possession, though he be not evicted; and a variance of Jawick Park for Jawick in the forged deed is not material. Instrument under seal held a deed, though containing neither contract nor grant. A bill drawn upon the com missioners of the navy held to be a bill of exchange within 2 G. 2. c. 25. Essex, and that the defendant, intending to molest them and their interest in the premises, forged a lease and release as from Garbut and his wife, whereby they are supposed for a valuable consideration to convey to him "all that park called Jawick park, in the parish of Clackton in Essex, containing eight miles in circumference, with all the deer, woods, &c. thereto belonging." It was moved in arrest of judgment, that the premises supposed to be conveyed were so materially different from those which were really the estate of Garbut and his wife, that it was impossible this conveyance ever could molest or disturb them. But the court held, that it was not necessary that there should be a charge or a possibility of a charge, and that it was sufficient if it were done with that intent, and the jury have found that it was done with intent to molest Garbut and his wife in the possession of their lands. Accordingly judgment was given for the king; and the defendant had sentence to undergo the punishment appointed by the act for forging a deed, and the same was executed upon him at Charing Cross. Prisoner was indicted under 2 G. 2. c. 25. (now repealed) for uttering a false and counterfeited deed, and was convicted on proof of having made use of a forged power of attorney, which was signed, sealed, and delivered, for the transfer of government stock. Exception was taken that this instrument was not a deed, because it contained no matter of contract or grant, and further, that it was not a deed within the legislative meaning of 2 G.2.: after argument on case reserved, the judges were unanimous that the conviction was right. R. v. Fauntleroy, 1 R. & M. 52. S. C. 2 B. 413. See 1 W. 4. c. 66. § 6., antè, p. 256. Josiah Chisholm was convicted for forging a certain bill of exchange in the following form: "3d rate Robert Gore. Entered 13th day of May 1814. (now repealed). Full pay from 13th day of May 1814, to 4th day of} August 1814 Amount of deductions Net pay £ s. d. 25 4 0 2 17 3 22 6 9 Gentlemen, 8th day of August 1814. Ten days after sight, please to pay to Mrs. Elizath. Coall or Order the sum of twenty-two pounds six shillings and ninepence, being the nett personal pay due to me as acts lieutenant of his Majesty's ship Zealous, between thirteenth day of May 1814 and fourth day of August 1814, for value received. Robt, Gore. To the commissioners of his Majesty's Navy, London." With intent to defraud Elizabeth Coall, widow, against the statute, &c. The second count was for uttering, &c. with the like intention, and the third and fourth counts were similar; only laying the |