« PreviousContinue »
that it appears to be made payable to two ladies, describing them as stewardesses of a provident society, or their successors in office; and that, this society not being enrolled according to the statute, this note was not capable to enure to their successors, and was not negotiable. The judges are of opinion that this is, as stated on the indictment, a valid promissory note within the statute of G. 2. It is not necessary that such a note should be in itself negotiable; it is sufficient that it should be a note for the certain payment of a sum of money, whether negotiable or not. And though these ladies were not at the time legally stewardesses, yet it was a description by which they were known at the time; and though they could not legally have successors in office, yet, in case of their decease, their executors and administrators might sue, and they themselves, during their life, might recover on it. Therefore, it is an instrument capable of being the subject of forgery, and there is no ground to arrest the judgment; and the judges are all of opinion
that the conviction is right.” The prisoner was executed. Charge of ut- In forgery, it appeared that the acceptance written across a bill tering a forged of exchange was forged, and the prisoner was proved to have bill not sup
knowingly uttered it. It was held, on case reserved, that counts ported by proof charging the uttering a forged bill were not proved by proof of of uttering a forged ac
uttering a forged acceptance ; for, by 1 W. 4. c. 66. $ 33., uttering ceptance. a forged acceptance is made a distinct offence.
Other counts charged, that prisoner having in his possession a certain bill (setting it out without the acceptance), with a certain forged acceptance on the said bill (setting out the acceptance), uttered, “then and there knowing the said last-mentioned acceptance to be forged,” the
said last-mentioned bill of exchange, with intent to defraud, &c. The uttering of It was objected, that it was not expressly stated, that the prisoner the forged ac- uttered the forged acceptance, but only that he had in his posceptance must be expressly
session a bill with the acceptance on it, and that he uttered the averred. bill knowing the acceptance to be forged ; and non constat but
that he might have expunged by some means the forged acceptance before he uttered the bill. The judges held unanimously that the counts were bad, for the reasons assigned. H. T. 1834, Rex v. Samuel Rodwell, cor. Gurney B., Stafford Sum. Ass.
1833. MS. Rex v. Watts. Rerv. Thomas Watts. In the Exchequer Chamber, H. 2 & 3 G. 4. The prisoner
3 Brod. & Bing. 197. S. C. C. C. R. 436. 2 Russ. 325. The prisoner having promised
was tried before Best J., at the last assizes for Devon. The first in payment for some goods an
count of the indictment was for forging, at East Stonehouse, on acceptance 6th April, 1821, an acceptance by Messrs. Williams & Co. to a by a London certain bill of exchange, as follows; viz. banker, gave a bill addressed No. 117. £ 200.
March 28th, to, and purport
Swansea Bank, 1821. ing to be ac- Two Months after date pay to Mr. John Tipper, or order, cepted by, Williams & Co.,
Two hundred Pounds,
for value received, lane, London ;
Bankers, Birchin-lane, it was proved
Hy. Williams & Co. that Williams, Burgess, & Co., with intent to defraud one Thomas Baylis, John Routledge, and of No. 20. Jonathan Ramsay. The second count was for uttering and pubBirchin lane, had
lishing, as true, the said forged acceptance on the said bill of exnot accepted the
change, knowing the same to be forged, with a like intent.
He was acquitted on the first, and convicted on the second Rex v. Watts. count.
It was proved, that, in April last, the prisoner purchased of the bill, and that no prosecutors wheat to the amount of 2401. At the time he made the name of the purchase, he agreed to pay by the acceptance of a London Williams & Co. banker. Before the wheat was delivered to him, he produced to were known in the prosecutors a bill in these words and figures :
London; but no
evidence was No. 117. € 200.
show that Swansea Bank, 1821.
Williams & Co. Two Months after date pay to Mr. John Tipper, or order, of No.3. BirchTwo hundred Pounds,
in-lane, had not for value received,
accepted the To Mests. Williams & Co.
bill: Held, Bankers, 3, Birchin-lane,
H. Williams & Co.
was no forgery 3. London.
the prisoner, He was asked how he proposed to pay the remainder of the by ten judges money, and said, he would draw on the same bankers for the against one ; balance. He then drew the following bill in the prosecutor's Bayley J. abcounting-house :€40.
South Tawton, April 6th, 1821.
for P. Watts & Co. 3.
London. He said he would send this bill to London, to get it accepted. It was afterwards sent back to the prosecutors, accepted, as it now appears. Whilst he was drawing the bill, one of the prosecutors asked him if Williams & Co., the acceptors, were Williams, Burgess, & Co. The prisoner said the acceptors were Williams, Burgess, & Co. Prosecutor said it was improbable there should be two firms of the same name in the same street, and prisoner answered it was improbable. The figure 3, which stands between the words Bankers and Birchin-lane, in the 2001. bill, was not then on the bill. The witnesses did not observe whether the small figure 3. in the corner, was on the bill at this time. It appeared to a witness acquainted with bills not to be a part of the address, but was like a figure that the holders of bills sometimes put on them before they leave them for acceptance. But the person who presented this bill had not observed whether it was on the bill when he presented it for payment, or not. A person to whom he presented the bill at the house, No. 3. Birchin-lane, took this bill behind a desk, and had an opportunity of writing on it one or both these figures. But the person who presented it did not observe, when he received the bill back, whether either of these figures were then on it. There are London bankers at No. 20. Birchin-lane, of the names of Williams, Burgess, & Co., who usually accept bills in the form of Williams & Co. This bill was not accepted by that firm. No other bankers of the names of Williams & Co. were known to carry on business in Birchin.
lane, nor were there any other London bankers under that firm. The words “ Williams & Co.” were on a brass plate, on the door of No. 3. There was no evidence to shew by whom these bills were accepted.
The prisoner proved that three bills, in the following form, had been paid at No. 3. Birchin-lane, viz. : No. 345. £30.
South Tawton, March 5th, 1821. Two months after date pay to our order Thirty Pounds, for value received.
Messrs. Williams & Co.
for P. Watts & Co.
Swansea. Best J. left it to the jury to say, whether the acceptance of the 2001. bill was the acceptance of any London bankers.
The question for the opinion of the judges was, whether the prisoner was properly convicted? There was also a further question, (viz.) Whether, considering the manner in which the bill is stated in the indictment, it was necessary for the prosecutors to prove that the 3. in the corner was on the bill when it was tendered in payment ?- Williams C. F. for the prisoner. No evidence has been adduced to shew that the acceptance which the prisoner is charged with having forged, was not the acceptance of those persons whose acceptance it purports to be; namely, the acceptance of Williams &; * Co., of No. 3. Birchin-lane; if the acceptance was written by them, the circumstance of their not being bankers would not render the prisoner guilty of a forgery.
The jury, indeed, have found that he did not forge the acceptance, and even wilful misrepresentation made after uttering a bill will not render that a forgery which was not so at the time the bill was drawn. Rex v. Webb (a). Walker's case, 2 Russ. 1420. Hevey's case, 2 East's P. C. 856.
Uttering a bill (a) Rex v. Webb, in the Erch. Chamb. Nov. 13. 1819. C. C. R. 405. 3 Brod. addressed to a
of Bing. 228. S. C. The prisoner was tried before Best J. at the last Wiltshire man by a par
Assizes. The indictment charged him with feloniously forging and counterticular descrip- feiting a certain bill of exchange, as follows: tion and addi. tion, with an
£154 9s. Od. acceptance thereon by a
Wilton, Wilts, Dec. 21st, 1818. man of the same
Two Months after date, pay to my order one hundred and fifty-four pounds name, but not
nine shillings, for value received and balance of account. of that description or addition, will not be capital if there be no man an
John Webb. swering that
To Mr. Thos. Bowden, description or addition, and no false name
Baize Manufacturer, be assumed.
Accepted, Thos. Bowden.
Secondly, there is a variance in the setting out of the bill on record, no evidence having shewn that the bill, when uttered, contained the figure 3 stated on the record. Thirdly, it ought not, for the reason before stated, to have been left to the jury, whether or no this was an acceptance by London bankers. For the crown, the cases of Mead v. Young (4 T. R. 28.), and Parkes' and Brown's se (2 Leach, 775. 2 East's P. C. 963.), were cited as in point. - No judgment was given, but the prisoner received a free pardon. Eleven judges were present, of whom ten were of opinion that this case did not amount to forgery. They gave no opinion upon the point as to the variance, their judgment on the first point rendering that unnecessary. Bayley J. was absent at chambers. 3 Brod. & Bing. 201.
W. Testick was indicted (Bodmin Sum. Ass. 1774, 2 East's Receipts. P.C. 925. 2 Russ. 362.) for uttering and publishing as true a forged receipt for money, with the name S. W., &c., for 17. 45. which was as follows ; viz.
With intention to defraud Hqdham Lock, William Hughes, and Henry Saunders,
(a) See antè, p. 273.
« Received the
“ 18th March, 1773. contents above,
“ Received the contents above, by me, by me," &c. is
" Stephen Withers." a sufficient
With intent to defraud R. Goadby, &c. It appeared that the statement of a receipt in an
prisoner was employed by Goadby, who sold lottery tickets and indictmene. shares, and paid the money for prizes, to settle an account with
S. Withers ; that a precise account in writing was given by Goadby to the prisoner, in which there was a balance of ll. 45. due to Withers, with the money to pay that balance ; that the prisoner afterwards, on settling his accounts with Goadby, produced this very account, together with the receipt stated in the indictment, which was not signed by Withers, and took credit for the amount, knowing that Withers had not been paid. It was objected that this receipt did not correspond with the indictment, which should have contained the bill as well as the receipt ; and that the receipt, as set forth, of “the contents above" did not appear to be a receipt for the bill in question, or to be a receipt for money. After conviction, judgment was respited ; but in Mich. T. 1774, the judges were of opinion that the indictment was sufficient, for it was, “ Received the contents above," which shewed it to be a receipt for something, though the particulars were not expressed; it was laid to be a forged receipt for money under the hand of S. W. for 1l. 4s. Od., and the bill itself was only evidence of the fact, and
shewed it to be a receipt for money as charged. Receipt to a But in the case of W. Hunter (E. T. 1796), who was indicted navy bill as- for forging a receipt to an assignment for payment of a certain signment. sum in a navy bill, the judgment was arrested, because it did not
appear on the face of the instrument, nor was shewn by any averment, that the instrument was a receipt for money. R. v. Hunter,
2 Leach, 624. 2 East's P. C. 928. Scrip receipt. In Lyon's case it was ruled by all the judges, that a scrip receipt
not filled up with the name of the subscriber, or person from whom the money was received, is not a receipt for money within the
statutes. Lyon's case, 2 East's P. C. 933. Alteration in
A person who makes a copy of a receipt, interpolating the copy.
words " in full of all demands," and produces such false copy upon a suggestion of the loss of the original, is guilty of forgery. Upfold v. Leit, Sitt. after H. T. 1804, cor. Ld. Eilenborough Č.J.,
5 Esp. 100. Initials, &c. on The indictment charged the prisoner with publishing the following a receipt must be explained.
forged receipt to an account for money, “ 1$25. Received, H. H., which had been given by Henry Hargreaves as a receipt for other money, but which prisoner had annexed to the account in ques. tion, and had published it for a genuine and true receipt for the sum in account, with intent to defraud said H. Hargreaves : after conviction, judgment was arrested, on the ground that the indictment ought to have shewn what “ H. H.” meant, and what connection Hargreaves had with the receipt. E. T. 1826, R.v. Barton, 1 R. & M. 141.
As to producing unstamped receipts in support of a charge of
felony founded thereon, see R. v. Hall, 3 Stark. 67., antè, p. 274. Order for pay- If the warrant or order, mentioned in stat. 7 G. 2. c. 22. (now ment of money repealed), do not purport, on the face of it, nor be shewn by a or delivery of
proper averment, to be made by a person having authority to comgoods, must appear to be the mand the payment of the money, or direct the delivery of the