tendency to criminate him, and the witness proceeds with that knowledge to give an account of part of a transaction, the judge may compel him to give the whole, and disclose the whole truth.

CRESSWELL, J.-And, as you put it, not only may, but ought.

S. Martin. I put aside cases of inadvertence. The prisoner knew what he was about, and it is entirely in the discretion of the judge to give the witness any caution or not; and there is no tribunal to review his decision. The judge is not bound to caution any witness. If a judge saw an ignorant man likely to do a thing inadvertently, he would caution him, but if he saw a very sharp attorney, quite able to take care of himself, he would not. It is no part of the duty of a judge to caution witnesses, and *knowledge is quite equivalent to a caution. *494] In a case at the Winchester Summer Assizes, 1815, (a) Dampier, J., held, that if a witness in his examination in chief voluntarily answers questions tending to criminate him, he is bound to answer on crossexamination, however penal the consequences may be.

CRESSWELL, J.-Mr. Watson informed me that in a case of murder, in which he was for the prisoner, he cross-examined a witness as to the part he (the witness) took in the transaction. The witness was asked if he had a knife, and said that he had; he was then asked in what position. he had the knife when the prisoner came up; and the late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas stopped Mr. Watson.

S. Martin.-The case of Rex v. Slaney shows that it is not in the witness's own hands to answer or not, as he pleases; it is for the judge to decide.

ERLE, J.-Whose handwriting was this acceptance alleged to be in the plaintiff's case at the trial at Croydon ?

S. Martin.-Booth's own.

M. Chambers. It was a contest whose handwriting it was.

S. Martin. The prisoner came forward voluntarily to protect his friend; and having protected his friend, he wanted to back out and tell

no more.

Lord DENMAN, C. J.-In this case, I to the very last expected that it would come out, that, even if Booth had *not actually written. this acceptance, it had been written by his authority.

*495]

S. Martin. The prisoner did not ultimately answer any question that he at first refused to answer.

Lord DENMAN, C. J.-He made a series of evasions to questions which he did not refuse to answer, and these evasions added together amounted to a confession.

M. Chambers replied.

The case was afterwards considered by the Judges, when a majority of their Lordships held the conviction wrong, being of opinion, that, if a witness claims the protection of the Court on the ground that his answer (a) Mann. Dig. of N. P. Rep. 336, cited 1 Stark. Law of Ev., 3d ed., p. 198.

would tend to criminate himself, and there appears reasonable ground to believe that it would do so, he is not compellable to answer; and f obliged to answer notwithstanding, what he says must be considered to have been obtained by compulsion, and cannot afterwards be given in evidence against him. Their Lordships did not decide (as the case did not call for it) whether the mere declaration of a witness on oath, that he believed that the answer would tend to criminate him, would or would not be sufficient to protect him from answering, where sufficient other circumstances did not appear in the case to induce the judges to believe that the answer would tend to criminate the witness. Their Lordships. also held, that it made no difference in the right of the witness to protection that he had before answered in part;-their Lordships being of opinion that he was entitled to claim the privilege at any stage of the inquiry, and that no answer forced from him by the presiding judge (after such a claim) could be afterwards given in evidence against him.

*June Session, 1847.

BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WILDE.

[*496

REGINA v. HORATIO NELSON WEST.

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 "acquittanee,” 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.

FORGERY.-The first count of the indictment charged that the prisoner, on, &c., at, &c., "feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of, and put off eighty forged acquittances and receipts for money, each of the said forged acquittances and receipts for money purporting to be an acquittance and receipt for the sum of five pounds, with intent to defraud James Thomas Berkley; the prisoner knowing each and all of the said forged acquittances and receipts for money as aforesaid to be forged, against the statute," &c. Second count, for feloniously offering, uttering, &c., "eighty forged accountable receipts for money, each of the said forged accountable receipts for money purporting to be an account able receipt for the sum of five pounds," with like intent, and scienter. Third count, for feloniously offering, uttering, &c. "eighty forged warrants and orders for the delivery of certain securities for payment of money, each of the said forged warrants and orders for the delivery of certain se VOL. JI.--41

turities for payment of money purporting to be a warrant and order for the delivery of one share of fifty pounds in the London and South-western Railway Company, part of the additional capital raised under the authority of a special general meeting of proprietors, held on the seventeenth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, and the resolutions of the court of directors held on the same day, and of the *497] value of five pounds," with the like intent, and scienter. Fourth count, for feloniously offering, uttering, &c., "eighty forged undertakings for the payment of money, each of the said forged undertakings purporting to be an undertaking for the payment of interest, at the rate of five pounds for every one hundred pounds by the year on the amount of money paid from the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, to the first day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, in respect of a certain share of fifty pounds, part of the additional capital of the London and South-western Railway Company," with the like intent, and scienter. Fifth count, for feloniously offering, uttering, &c., "eighty forged undertakings for the payment of money," with the like intent, and scienter. Sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth counts precisely like the first five counts, but laying the intent to be to defraud “the London and South-western Railway Company."

The London and South-western Railway Company was established and regulated by the stats. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. lxxxviii. (loc. and pers.), and 2 Vict. c. xxviii. (loc. and pers.)

It was proved, that it was determined by the Company, in November, 1846, to create a number of new shares, and that a bill was depending in Parliament relating to such new shares, and that the new shares had been allotted to the old proprietors; that the course pursued in relation to the new shares was, that letters were written to the old proprietors, giving them the option of subscribing for the new shares, and that new shares were accordingly allotted to such proprietors as desired it; the allotment being intimated by a letter to the proprietor, who was required therein to pay a deposit of £5 per share to the banker of the Company. That the proprietor took his letter of allotment to the banker, and paid his deposit of £5 a share accordingly, and that the banker gave a receipt for the amounts paid, and also signed the letter of allotment, *498] as a voucher that the deposit had been paid. The proprietor then took the letter of allotment so signed by the banker to the office of the Company, and there received in exchange an instrument, signed by two of the directors, in the form of the eighty instruments which were the subject of the present indictment, and which instruments were denominated scrip; and the instruments proved to have been uttered by the prisoner were the same in form and contents as such scrip, and each of them being as follows:

"No.

"LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
"New Capital, 1846-7.

"One share, £50.

"THE holder of this scrip certificate having paid the deposit of £5, signed the Parliamentary contract and subscribers' agreement, and agreed to pay all calls in respect thereof, is the proprietor of one share of £50, part of the additional capital raised under the authority of the special general meeting of proprietors held on the 17th of November, 1846, and the resolutions of the court of directors held the same day.

"The share represented by this scrip certificate will bear interest at the rate of £5 per cent. per annum on the amount paid from 1st of January, 1847, to 1st July, 1853; after which latter date, it will rank with the original stock, and share rateably in the net profits of the Company. 'See, also, 10th resolution of the court of directors, 17th of November, 1846, on the back hereof.

"Dated the 1st day of January, 1847.

"Entered,

"ALFRED MORGAN, Treasurer.

"J. L. EYRE,
"H. C. LACY,

Directors.

"This scrip certificate will be exchanged for a certificate of registration, when an act of Parliament authorizing the creation of the said additional capital shall have heen obtained."

[Endorsement.]

10th.-"That, if, in the ensuing session of Parliament, no act shall be passed for any extension of this railway, or for authorizing any railway to be wholly or partly executed out of capital to be furnished by this Company, all expenses incurred with reference to the subjects mentioned in the report made this day by the directors to the shareholders shall be paid out of the general funds of the Company, and the said scrip receipts shall be called in, and the [*499 amounts paid thereon shall in such manner, upon such terms, and at such time as the board of directors in their discretion shall think proper, be consolidated and converted into a proportionate number of new shares of £50 or £40 (as the case may be), to be considered as fully paid up, and to enjoy the same rights and privileges, and to be subject to the same liabilities (except in respect of calls) as the new shares of £50 and £40, each created under 9 Vict. c. 195, are respectively entitled and subject to, or as near thereto as circumstances will admit."

It was further proved, that the possession of the scrip was the only proof required by the company of the title of the holder and of the payment of the deposit.

Ballantine and B. C. Robinson, for the prisoner, objected, that the eighty instruments uttered by the prisoner did not come within the description of those mentioned in the stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, ss. 3, 10, 26, and that the uttering of them was not an offence within that statute.

WILDE, C. J., reserved the case for the consideration of the fifteen judges. Verdict-Guilty.

Clarkson, Bodkin, and Doane, for the prosecution.

Ballantine and B. C. Robinson, for the prisoner.

[Attorneys-C. & J. A. Morgan, and W. C. Humphreys.]

BEFORE LORD DENMAN, C. J.; WILDE, C. J.; POLLOCK, C. B.; PARKE, B.; ALDERSON, B.; COLERIDGE, J.; COLTMAN, J.; MAULE, J.; ROLFE, B.; WIGHTMAN, J.; ERLE, J.; AND WILLIAMS, J. [Nov. 13.]

Ballantine, for the prisoner. These scrip certificates are not receipts; the receipt was given by the banker; it is a different instrument which

the proprietor of the shares had in addition to the scrip certificate. A scrip certificate *is in no respect a receipt, and it acts in a different

*500] manner. The words "having paid the deposit", are mere recital.

Every deed which is made upon a pecuniary consideration contains a recital of the payment of it, but the receipt for it is always at the back of the deed. In the case of Rex v. Harvey, R. & R. C. C. 227, a forged paper "William Chinnery, Esq., paid to Xtomson the sum of eight pounds, Feb. 13, 1812," was held not to be a receipt ;""because it was an assertion that Chinnery had paid the money, but did not import an acknowledgment thereof." In the case of Clark v. Newsam, 16 Law J., N. S., Exch., 296, it was held, that a railway scrip certifi cate of the same kind as those in the present case was neither a receipt, nor an acquittance, nor an accountable receipt, and that the forgery of it was not a felony.(a)

ALDERSON, B.-The judgment in that case went, in some degree, on the word "acquittance;" an acquittance being a document that would acquit a personal and previous debt.

Ballantine. The second count is for uttering "accountable receipts;" and if these documents are not receipts, à fortiori, they are not "accountable receipts." The third count is for uttering "warrants and orders for securities for the payment of money.'

M. D. Hill, for the prosecution.-I give up that count.

Ballantine.-The fourth count is for uttering "undertakings *501] for the payment of interest," and the fifth count for uttering "undertakings for the payment of money." There is here no undertaking by any one to pay money to any one. The holders of scrip are, at most, only entitled to shares in the Company. It has been held that bank-notes are not money, and à fortiori, shares are not.

MAULE, J.-It is to be contended that these are an undertaking to pay money, there being an undertaking to pay the interest.

Ballantine. The share is to bear interest; but the holder of the scrip certificate has not got the share, and the title to the interest depends on the possession of the share; and even if the holder of scrip could compel the directors to give him the shares, these scrip certificates are not shares.

M. D. Hill, for the prosecution.-I apprehend that these documents are .eceipts, and I am also prepared to argue that they are acquittances. If a presert of money were sent and intercepted, and a receipt for it forged and sent back, would not that be a forgery within the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10?

(In that case the scrip certificate was in the following form :-" 1845. Scrip. Buckinghamshir Railway, and Oxford and Bletchley Junction; Provisionally registered; Capital £2,250,000, in share of £20 each; No. 101801 to 101850; deposit 21. 28. The holder of this voucher is entitled to fifty shares in the above undertaking, he having signed the subscribers' agreement and parlia mentary contract, paid the deposit as above, and agreed to pay all calls in respect of the said shares. By order of the committee of management.

"W. HARDING, Secretary."