made no difference that the sale was made by auction. Bardell v. Spinks, 646 2. Where the declaration alleged that the defendant had falsely represented himself as an agent of the master of a vessel, and so entered into a charter-party with the plaintiffs: Held, that, under the plea "Not guilty," the contract must be proved by the plaintiffs, and not the misrepresentation only; and, secondly, that the charter-party, being unstamped, could not be read in evidence; though the defendant was not an agent of any "master, or captain, or owner" of a vessel. Brink v. Winguard, 656

FALSE STATEMENT TO A REGISTRAR. See REGISTRAR.

FEIGNED ISSUE.

1. Under a feigned issue, brought to try the right of property in certain goods which had been seized under an execution against A.Held, that the question for the jury was, not whether the goods were the property of the plaintiff in the feigned issue, or of A., but merely whether they were or were not the property of the former. Green v. Rogers, 148 2. Where goods have been taken under a fi. fa., and an issue is directed to try whether the goods were those of a third person, and on that issue the jury at the assizes find for such person who is plaintiff in the issue, the practice is for the associate to keep the Nisi Prius record till after the fourth day of the next term, unless the Judge orders it to be immediately delivered up to the plaintiff's attorney upon an application in the nature of an application for speedy execution. v. Clarke,

off

FENCES.

Abbott 209

1. The occupier of the land is bound to fence any hole or area upon it which adjoins, or is so close to, a public way, that it may be dangerous to passers by if left unguarded. Barnes v. Ward,

661

1. A bill of exchange was payable to "Mrs. E. I., widow, M. I., spinster, A. M. I., spinster, and A. M., the wife of E. B., Esq., or order, the executrixes of the late J. I., Esq." A. was indicted for forging "a certain endorsement of the said bill of exchange, which lastmentioned endorsement is as follows, that is to say, “A. M. I." It was objected, that the bill was only negotiable on the endorsement of all the payees, and, therefore, that this was not a forged endorsement of the bill. The prisoner was convicted, and the judges held the conviction right. Reg. v. Winterbottom,

37

2. An indictment for forging "a certain warrant and order for the payment of money" is not supported by proof of the forgery of an instrument which is a warrant for the payment of money, but which is not an order. Reg. v. Williams,

3.

51

A. kept a deposit account, but not a drawing account with B., a banker, and A. was not entitled to draw checks on B. C. presented a forged check of A. on B., which B. paid: -Held, that this check was a forged tearrant for the payment of money, but not a forged order, as A. had, by the course of dealing be. tween him and B., no right to draw cheeks on B. Did.

4. If A., by letter, desire B., an innocent agent, to write the name of "W. S." to a receipt on a Post-office order, and the innocent agent do it, believing that he is authorized so to do, A. is a principal in this forgery, and it makes no difference that by the letter A. says to B. that he is "at liberty" to sign the name of W. S., and does not in express words direct him to do so.

But if A., before the date of the letter sent to B., received by post a letter of an earlier date purporting to have come from W. S., and bearing post-marks of earlier date, from which it may be inferred that he was anthorized to make use of the name of W. S., the counsel of A., on his trial for the forgery, is entitled to state the contents of that letter, and to give it in evidence, with a view of showing that A. bond fide believed that he had the authority of W. S. for directing B. to sign the name of W. S. to the receipt. Reg. v. Clifford, 202

5. H., who was tried for forging the will of S. J., had sent the forged will to his attorney, Mr. M., with some deeds of S. J., ostensibly for the purpose of asking his advice, but really that he might find the will and act on it. It was afterwards produced by Mr. M. before the magistrates, when H. was charged before them with forging it. At the trial of H. for the forgery, Mr. M. was called to produce the will, which he did without any objection being taken. The officer of the Court was proceeding to read it, when the prisoner's counsel objected to the reading of it, as being privileged in the hands of Mr. M. The Judge directed it to be read in evidence, and the fifteen Judges held that it was properly so read, it not having been put into the hands of Mr. M. in professional confidence, even if that would have made a difference. Reg. v. Hayward, 234

6. The wife of A. went to B., an attorney, and produced a forged will to him, and asked him to advance money to A. on the property mentioned in it. B. was not then the attorney of A., or in any way acting as his solicitor. A.'s wife left the forged will with B., who made a copy of it. A. afterwards called on B., who told A. all that had occurred, and returned him the forged will, declining to advance any money:-Held, that the conversation between A.'s wife and B. was not a privileged communication; and that, on the trial of A. for forgery, evidence might be given of it, and also that the copy of the forged will made by B. might be given in evidence, notice having been given to A. to produce the original. Reg. v. Farley, 7. If A. give to B. a forged certificate of a pretended marriage between himself and B., in order that B. may give it to a third party, A. is not guilty of an "uttering" within the 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 20. Reg. v. Heywood,

313

352

were, in fact, written by A., without the authority or knowledge of D. L. On the 2d of August, 1845, by seven deeds of transfer, which purported to be executed by D. L. as transferror, these shares were transferred to five different persons, and by one of them ten of the shares purported to be transferred to W. B. The name of D. L. was signed to all these deeds by A., without the authority or knowledge of D. L. On these seven transfers there was a profit, which D. L. refused to receive from A., and it did not appear that any further call on these shares could be made-Held, that on these facts A. was entitled to be acquitted, as neither the Company, nor D. L., nor W. B. could be defrauded.

11. E. W. came to a banking-house, and asked to have a bill discounted, stating that he came from Mr. Tomlinson (who was known to the banker's clerk), and on one of the bankers saying that Mr. Tomlinson had not endorsed the bill, E. W. said that he could endorse it for him. The banker then wrote on the back of the bill "Per procuration, Thomas Tomlinson," and the prisoner signed his own name, E. W., to it :-Held not to be a forgery. Reg. v. White,

66

404

12. A railway scrip certificate, signed by two of the directors, and which states that the holder of it "having paid the deposit of £5, signed the parliamentary contract and subscribers' agreement, and agreed to pay all costs in respect thereof, is the proprietor of one share of £50, part of the additional capital;" and which states that "the share represented by this certificate will bear interest at the rate of £5 per cent." from 1st Jan. 1847, to 1st July, 1853, and after that share in the net profits of the company, is neither a receipt," nor an "acquittance," nor an "accountable receipt" within the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10; and the forgery of such certificate is, therefore, not an offence against that statute. Reg. v. West, 13. A. gave to B., his clerk, a blank check, and directed him to fill it up with the amount of a bill and expenses (for which A. had to provide, and which amount B. was to ascertain), and get the check cashed, and pay the amount to Mr. W., and take up the bill. The bill was for 1567. 98. 9d., the expenses about 108. B. filled up the check with the sum of

496

2501., got it cashed, and kept the whole of the amount, alleging that it was due to him for salary:-Held, that this was forgery, and that this was so even if B. bonâ fide believed that 2501. were due to him from A., or even if it were really due to him. Reg. v. Wilson, 527 14. In a case of forgery the name John M'Nicoll, signed to the forged instrument, was, in the setting out of the forged instrument in the indictment, written John M'Nicole :-Held not to be a variance. Ibid. 15. A. desired William Wilkinson, a mechanic in his service at Leeds, at weekly wages, to write his name across a blank stamp, which he did. A. wrote on it a bill of exchange for 148l. 78. 9d., drawn on "Mr. William Wilkinson, Halifax," and A. wrote over the acceptance, 'Payable at Smith, Payne, & Co., Bankers, London." A. intended, at the time the acceptance was written, to make the drawing to be on a Mr. William Wilkinson, of Halifax, there being persons of that name resident there, but none of whom had given him any authority to draw:-Held forgery. Reg. v. Blenkinsop,

531

16. It was the practice of the treasurer of the county of S., when an order had been made on him for the payment of the expenses of a prosecution, to pay the whole amount to the attorney for the prosecution or his clerk, and to require the signature of every person named in the order to be written on the back of it, and opposite to each name the sum ordered to be paid to each person respectively: -Held, that such a signature is not a receipt, the forging of which is an offence against the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10, and that it is merely an authority to the treasurer to pay the amount. Reg. v. Cooper,

586

17. The forgery of a railway pass, to allow the bearer to pass free on a railway, is a forgery at common law; but the uttering of it per se is not a misdemeanour. Reg. v. Boult, 604 18. The uttering of a forged instrument, the forgery of which is only a forgery at common law, is no offence, unless some fraud was actually perpetrated by it; and where, in such a case, the indictment contained some counts for forging the instrument and others for uttering it, and the defendant was acquitted on the counts for the forgery, and convicted on the counts for the uttering, the judgment was arrested. Ibid. 19. An unsigned forged paper, "Received from Mr. Bendon, due to Mr. Warman, 178. Settelled," is a forged receipt within the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10. Reg. v. Inder, 635 20. A., a shareholder, had bought twenty shares in the E. C. R. Co., of L., a broker, which stood in the name of R. A. P.; but L. did not send A. the deed of transfer, as A. was in embarrassed circumstances, and owed L.

21. The practice was, for a majority of the officers of a parish to draw checks on the treasurer of a union; and one of their blank checks, filled up for 11. 38. 6d. had a note at the bottom-"Unless this check is signed by a majority of the parish officers, it will not be cashed." This check was signed by une of the officers while it was for 11. 3s. 6d. It was altered to 31. 38. 6d., and when cashed by the treasurer, had the signatures of a majority of the officers to it:-Held, that if the cheek was fraudulently altered when i had only one signature to it, this was no forgery, as it was then an incomplete instrumen. Reg. v. Turpin, 820

22. A tasting order to taste wise in the London Docks, is an order for the aclivery of goods, the forgery of which is a felony within the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. lv. Reg. v. Midge,

871

23. At the London Docks, a person bringing a tasting order from a merchant having wine there, is not allowed to taste till the order has the signature of a clerk of the company across it. A. uttered a tasting order with the merchant's name forged to it, by presenting it to the company's clerk for his signature across it. The clerk refused to sign it :-Held, that, in this state, the order was a forged order for the delivery of goods. Ibid.

24. A. was indicted at the Central Criminal Court for a forgery at common law. He bad been on bail, and, immediately before the trial commenced, had surrendered in discharge of his bail. There was no evidence that A. had committed the forgery within the jurisdiction of that court; but, held, that he was triable there, as being "in custody" within the jurisdiction, under the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 24. Reg. v. Smythies, 873

FOUNDATION.

A. and B. were the owners of adjoining lands, and the house of A. had for more than twenty years been supported by the adjoining land of B., who dug a foundation for some intended buildings so near the house of A. that it fell:-Held, that, if A.'s house had been so supported, and both parties knew it, the plaintiff had a right to such support as an easement, and that the defendant could not withdraw that support without being liable in damages for any injury that the plaintiff might sustain thereby, which damages should be such as to put the plaintiff in the same

1. In indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, the defendant cannot show, under the plea of non assumpsit, that at the time of the sale the goods sold did not belong to the vendor, and that they were afterwards reclaimed by the real owner. Walker v. Mellon, 346 2. A. sold to B., by sample, twenty-four sacks of flour, part of a lot of 217 sacks belonging to A., which were lying at the warehouse of one M., and he also gave B. a delivery-order on M., in pursuance of which M. transferred twenty-four sacks of flour to B.'s name in his books; and afterwards delivered twelve sacks of the flour to B., which B. paid for. No appropriation of any particular twenty-four sacks was ever made for B. The flour contained in the twelve sacks delivered was found, on examination, not to correspond with the sample, and B. consequently refused to accept or pay for the remaining twelve :Held, that A. could not recover the price of these twelve sacks in an action for goods sold and delivered.

Whether, in such a case, goods bargained and sold would lie, quære? Elliott v. Heginbotham,

GUARANTEE.
See PLEADING, 2.
HANDWRITING.
See EVIDENCE, 1, 2, 17.

545

HIGH SEAS.

See INDICTMENT, 1, 2.-Murder, 1.

HIGHWAY.

See ATTORNEY, 1.-FENCES.

If an indictment be preferred against the inhabitants of a parish under the Highway Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 95, and the defendants plead guilty, the judge will not direct the prosecutor's costs to be paid under that section, as the indictment was not tried before him. Reg. v. Inhabitants of Vowchurch, 393

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See COVERTURE.-MURDER, 12, 14.—
RECEIVER, 4.

1. If husband and wife be living separate and apart, and the husband make the wife a regular allowance of a sufficient sum for her maintenance, which is regularly paid, this is sufficient to repel the inference of agency, and he is not liable for any debt she may contract; and it is not necessary that there should be any deed of separation; but the allowance must be such as the jury shall think sufficient, reference being had to the station of the parties and the income of the husband. Holder v. Cope, 437 2. If husband and wife be living apart, and the husband makes the wife a sufficient allowance for her support, he is not liable in an action by a tradesman for goods supplied to her, and it is immaterial whether the tradesman knew of such allowance or not. Reeve v. The Marquis of Conyngham, 444

4.

Ibid.

3. If a wife living apart from her husband orders goods to be addressed and sent to a third person, and they be sent to the house of such third person, that not being the place of abode of the wife, the husband is not liable to pay for those goods. Where a sum of money was advanced to a wife who was living with her husband, and, after her decease, the husband promised to repay the sum "when convenient to him," but stated that he had not been privy to the loan,-Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury that the wife had borrowed the money with the sanction of the husband, or that she professed so to do, and that he had ratified her act. West v. Wheeler, 714

IMPOUNDING DOCUMENTS. In debt by payee against makers of a banker's check, in which the defendants pleaded that they did not make the check, the defendants' signatures were admitted, but it was opened for the defendants, that the defendants, who were directors of a company, of which the plaintiff was secretary, kept blank checks, with their signatures to them, in a