COUNTERFEITING COINS, ETC.

462. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who

(a) makes or begins to make any counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any current gold or silver coin; or

(b) gilds or silvers any coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any current gold or silver coin; or

(c) gilds or silvers any piece of silver or copper, or of coarse gold or coarse silver, or of any metal or mixture of metals respectively, being of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that the same shall be coined into counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any current gold or silver coin; or

(d) gilds any current silver coin, or files or in any manner alters such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any current gold coin; or

that J. S., on

(e) gilds or silvers any current copper coin, or files or in any manner alters such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin. R. S. C. c. 167, ss. 3 & 4. 24-25 V. c. 99, ss. 2 & 3 (Imp.). Indictment.ten pieces of false and counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of current gold coin, called a sovereign, falsely and unlawfully did make and counterfeit.

It is rarely the case that the counterfeiting can be proved directly by positive evidence; it is usually made out by circumstantial evidence, such as finding the necessary coining tools in the defendant's house, together with some pieces of the counterfeit money in a finished, some in an unfinished state, or such other circumstances as may fairly warrant the jury in presuming that the defendant either counterfeited or caused to be counterfeited, or was present aiding and abetting in counterfeiting the coin in question. Before the modern statutes which reduced the offence of coining from treason to felony, if several conspired to counterfeit the Queen's coin, and one of them actually did so in pursuance of the conspiracy, it was treason in all, and they might all have been indicted for counterfeiting the Queen's coin generally 1 Hale, 214; they may, likewise, now all be indicted as principals under s. 61 ante.

A variance between the indictment and the evidence in the number of the pieces of coin, alleged to be counterfeited, is immaterial; but a variance as to the denomination of such coin, as guineas, sovereigns, shillings, would be fatal, unless amended.. By the old law the counterfeit coin produced in evidence must have appeared to have that degree of resemblance to the real coin that it would be likely to be received as the coin for which it was intended to pass by persons using the caution customary in taking 1noney. In R. v. Varley, 1 East, P. C. 164, the defendant had counterfeited the semblance of a half-guinea upon a piece of gold previously hammered, but it was not round, nor would it pass in the condition in which it then was, and the judges held that the offence was incomplete. So, in R. v. Harris, 1 Leach, 135, where the defendants were taken in the very act of coining shillings, but the shillings coined by them were taken in an imperfect state, it being requisite that they should undergo another process, namely immersion in diluted aqua fortis, before they could pass as sbillings, the judges held that the offence was incomplete; but now by s. 461 the offence of counterfeiting shall be deemed complete although the coin made or counterfeited shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected.

Any credible witness may prove the coin to be counterfeit, and it is not necessary for this purpose to produce any moneyer or other officer from the mint: s. 692. If it become a question whether the coin, which the counterfeit money was intended to imitate, be current coin, it is not necessary to produce the proclamation to prove its legitimation; it is a mere question of fact to be left to the jury upon evidence of usage, reputation, etc.: 1 Hale, 196, 212, .213. It is not necessary to prove that the counterfeit coin was uttered or attempted to be uttered: R. v. Robinson, 10 Cox, 107; R. v. Connell, 1 C. & K. 190; R. v. Byrne, 6 Cox, 475.

1

By s. 711, if upon the trial it appears that the defendant did not complete the offence charged, but was only guilty of an attempt to commit the same, a verdict may be given of guilty of the attempt.

DEALING IN, IMPORTING COUNTERFEIT COIN.

463. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who, without lawful authority or excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him

(a) buys, sells, receives, pays or puts off, or offers to buy, sell, receive, pay or put off, at or for a lower rate or value than the same imports, or was apparently intended to import, any counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin; or

(b) imports or receives into Canada any counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any current gold or silver coin knowing the same to be counterfeit. R. S. C. c. 167, ss. 7 & 8, 24-25 V. c. 99, ss. 6 & 7 (Imp.).

Indictment under (a).

ten pieces of counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current gold coin, called a sovereign, falsely, deceitfully and unlawfully, and without lawful authority or excuse did put off to one J. N. at and for a lower rate and value than the same did then import.

Prove that the defendant put off the counterfeit coin as mentioned in the indictment. In R. v. Wooldridge, 1 Leach, 307, it was holden that the putting off must be complete and accepted. But the words "offer to buy, sell," etc., in the above clause would now make the acceptation immaterial.

If the names of the persons to whom the money was put off can be ascertained, they ought to be mentioned and laid severally in the indictment; but if they cannot be ascertained the same rule will apply which prevails in the case of stealing the property of persons unknown: 1 Russ. 135.

Indictment under (b).- ten thousand pieces of counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current silver coin called a shilling, falsely, deceitfully and unlawfully, and without lawful authority or excuse, did

import into Canada,-he the said J. S. at the said time when he so imported the said pieces of counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be counterfeit.

The guilty knowledge of the defendant must be averred in the indictment and proved.

COPPER COIN.

464. Every one who manufactures in Canada any copper coin, or imports into Canada any copper coin, other than current copper coin, with the intention of putting the same into circulation as current copper coin, is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars for every pound Troy of the weight thereof; and all such copper com so manufactured or imported shall be forfeited to Her Majesty. R. S. C. c. 167, s. 28.

The repealed section said copper "or brass" coin.

EXPORTATION.

465, Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, without lawful authority or excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him, exports or puts on board any ship, vessel or boat, or on any railway or carriage or vehicle of any description whatsoever, for the purpose of being exported from Canada, any counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current coin or for any foreign coin of any prince, country or state, knowing the same to be counterfeit. R. S. C. c. 167, s. 9. 24-25 V. c. 99, s. 8 (Imp.).

Fine, s. 958.

The words in italics are not in the Imperial Act.

The clause covers the attempt to export in certain cases. Sections 529 & 711 would cover other cases of attempts.

Indictment.one hundred pieces of counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current coin called a sovereign, falsely, deceitfully and unlawfully, without lawful authority or excuse, did export from Canada, he the said C. D. at the time when he so exported the said pieces of counterfeit coin, then well knowing the same to be counterfeit.

MAKING INSTRUMENTS FOR COINING.

466. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who, without lawful authority or excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him, makes or mends, or begins or proceeds to make or mend, or buys or sells, or has in his custody or possession

CRIM. LAW-35

(a) any puncheon, counter puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern or mould, in or upon which there is made or impressed, or which will make or impress, or which is adapted and intended to make or impress, the figure, stamp or apparent resemblance of both or either of the sides of any current gold or silver coin, or of any coin of any foreign prince, state or country, or any part or parts of both or either of such sides; or

(b) any edger, edging or other tool, collar, instrument or engine adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edges with letters, grainings, or other marks or figures apparently resembling those on the edges of any such coin, knowing the same to be so adapted and intended; or

(c) any press for coinage, or any cutting engine for cutting, by force of a screw or of any other contrivance, round blanks out of gold, silver or other metal or mixture of metals, or any other machine, knowing such press to be a press for coinage, or knowing such engine or machine to have been used or to be intended to be used for or in order to the false making or counterfeiting of any such coin. R. S. C. c. 167, s. 24. 24-25 V. c. 99, s. 24 (Imp.).

Indictment for making a puncheon for coining.one puncheon, in and upon which there was then made and impressed the figure of one of the sides, that is to say, the head side of a piece of the current silver coin, commonly called a shilling, knowingly, falsely, deceitfully and unlawfully, and without lawful authority or excuse, did make.

Prove that the defendant made a puncheon, as stated in the indictment; and prove that the instrument in question is a puncheon included in the statute. The words in the statute "upon which there is made or impressed" apply to the puncheon which being convex bears upon it the figure of the coin; and the words "which will make or impress' apply to the counter puncheon, which being concave will make and impress. However, although it is more accurate to describe the instruments according to their actual use, they may be described either way: R. v. Lennard, 1 Leach, 90. It is not necessary that the instrument should be capable of making an impression of the whole of one side of the coin, for the words "or any part or parts" are introduced into this statute, and, consequently the difficulty in R. v. Sutton, 2 Str. 1074, where the instrument was capable of making the sceptre only cannot now occur: see R. v. Heath, R. & R. 184.