ship was dissolved, Mr. R. F. Cox could not make an admission to bind the Messrs. Morrell.

The evidence was rejected.

Verdict for the defendants.

Whateley, Godson, and Keating, for the plaintiff.

Talfourd, Serjt., A. M. Skinner, and John Gray, for the defendants. [Attorneys-Nicholls & Doyle, and H. Walker.]

*604] *REGINA v. CHRISTOPHER BOULT. March 3.

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.

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.

FORGERY at common law. The first count of the indictment charged the defendant with having unlawfully forged "a certain writing, in the words and figures following: that is to say,

"Sir-Please to pass the siness of the Oxford and Rugby

6

Nov. 8, 1848. [Sic.]

"Great Western Railway. bearer to Oxford and back, on buRailway.

Yours, &c.,

GEO. WM. CARRINGTON.'

with intent to defraud the Great Western Railway Company." Second count, a similar count for uttering the forged paper, knowing it to be forged. The third and fourth counts were for forging and uttering a writing in the form and similitude of a railway pass" (setting it out): and the fifth and sixth counts were for forging and uttering "a certain writing to authorize the bearer thereof to be carried, free of charge, on the Great Western Railway from London to Oxford" (setting it out).

It appeared that, on the 5th of February, 1848, the defendant came to the Abingdon-road station by the Great Western Railway, and, on being asked for his ticket, presented the paper set out in the indictment; and, on being asked who "John Palmer" was, he replied, "Your deputysuperintendent at Paddington;" the defendant also then stating that he was sent with a letter to Mr. Morrell, of Oxford, on business of the Rugby Railway, which was false.

It was proved that passes of this kind were granted by the deputysuperintendent at Paddington to allow persons to pass on the railway free of charge, but that this was a forgery.

Verdict-Not guilty of the forgery, but guilty of the uttering.

[*605

*Carrington, for the defendant, submitted, in arrest of judgment, that, as the forgery of a document like that in the present case was only a forgery at common law, the uttering of such a forged. instrument was not a criminal offence. No decision of any court, no dictum of any judge, and no statement of any text-writer, had ever alluded to it as being an offence; and the authorities as to forgery at common law (about forty in number) all related to the actual forgery, and not to the uttering. The earliest statute relating to forgery was of the reign of Richard II., and by it judges and clerks who forged records were to pay a fine and make compensation; but uttering was no offence under that act, and the offence of uttering was not introduced into any of the forgery acts till the reign of George the Second. (a)

Keating, for the prosecution, contended, that, as the forging a document of this kind was a misdemeanour, the uttering of it must be a misdemeanour also.

CRESSWELL, J.-Have you any authority for that?
Keating. I have not been able to find any.

CRESSWELL, J.-I will consider of this till to-morrow.

March 4. Keating referred to a precedent in the case of The King v. Ferrers, Trem. Entr. 129, Sid. 278,(b) in which a person charged with forging and uttering an instrument the subject of forgery at common *law, was convicted and sentenced by the Court of King's Bench to a fine of £100.

[*606 CRESSWELL, J.—I have not found any case in which an indictment for uttering a forged instrument at common law has been maintained, unless some fraud was actually perpetrated by it, which is not the charge in this indictment; and Mr. Justice Patteson is not aware of any case on the subject. That the forgery of this instrument was a forgery at common law there is no doubt; but my opinion is, that the charge of uttering cannot be sustained, and the judgment must be arrested. Judgment arrested. (e)

Keating, for the prosecution.
Carrington, for the defendant.

[Attorneys-Walsh, and Slocombe.]

(a) There was also an objection taken to the form of the indictment, that it did not allege a course of business in the company as to passes of this kind; but on that objection no decision was pronounced.

(b) In that case the defendant was "convict de forging;" and if, in the present case, the defendant had been convicted of the actual forgery of the railway pass, the objection would not have arisen.

(c) In the case of The King v. Ferrers, Trem. Entr. 129, the false making and the uttering were both charged in one count; and this seems to have been the ancient practice both with respect to forgery and to coining; as to which, precedents will be found in West's Symboleography, tit. "Indict." ss. 118, 119, 142, 143, 144, 145, 263, 293, 294. The practice of introducing more than one count into an indictment, is of comparatively modern introduction.

*607]

*WORCESTER ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PATTESON.

REGINA v. JOHN ROBERTS. March 10.

In cases of perjury, although an assignment of perjury must be proved by two witnesses, it is not necessary to prove by two witnesses every fact which goes to make out the assignment of perjury.

A., to prove an alibi for B., had sworn that B. was not out of his sight between the hours of 8 A. M. and 9 A. M. on a certain day, and on this perjury was assigned. Proof by one witness that between those hours A. was at one place on foot, and by another witness that between those hours B. was walking at another place six miles off-Held to be sufficient proof of the assignment of perjury.

*6081

PERJURY.-The indictment stated,(a) that, within three calendar months after the commission of the offence *hereinafter mentioned by Richard Prosser, to wit, on the 20th of January, 1847, John (a) The indictment was in the following form :— Worcestershire,

to wit.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that, within three calendar months after the commission of the offence hereinafter next mentioned to have been committed by Richard Prosser, to wit, on the 20th day of January, A. D. 1847, at the Rhyd, in the said county of Worcester, Joseph Shorter, of the parish of Hanley Castle, in the said county of Worcester, game-keeper, in his proper person came before John Henry Allen, Esq., one of the justices of our Lady the Queen, assigned to keep the peace of our said Lady the Queen in and for the said county, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanours committed within the said county of Worcester, and then and there, to wit, at the Rhyd aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, exhibited a certain information in writing to and before the said justice, by which said information in writing he the said Joseph Shorter then and there gave the said justice to understand and be informed that Richard Prosser, of the parish of Hanley Castle, in the said county, labourer, did, within three calendar months then last past, to wit, on the 16th day of January, A. D. 1847, at the parish of Hanley Castle, in the said county, unlawfully use a certain gun for the purpose of killing a hare there, he the said Richard Prosser not being authorized to do so for want of a game certificate, contrary to the statute in that case made and provided, whereby, and by force of the said statute, he (meaning the said Richard Prosser) had forfeited a sum of money not exceeding £5, to be applied as the statutes in that behalf made and provided direct. And thereupon the said Joseph Shorter, on the day and year first aforesaid, at the Rhyd aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, prayed that the said Richard Prosser might be caused to appear before two of the justices aforesaid to answer the said information, and make his (meaning the said Richard Prosser's) defence thereto.

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that, after the exhibiting of the said information, but before any proceeding had or taken upon the said information either for summoning the said Richard Prosser, the party accused, or compelling his appearance to answer the same, to wit, on the 20th day of January, A. D. 1847, at the Rhyd in the said county, one Charles Symonds, of the parish of Hanley Castle, in the county of Worcester, a credible witness in that behalf, and not being the prosecutor or informer in the said case, came in his own proper person before the said John Henry Allen, Esq., one of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of Worcester, and was then there duly sworn by and before the said justice, and having heard the said information read, and fully understanding the same, did then and there, upon his oath aforesaid, before the said justice depose and swear, that the charge contained in the said information was true and correct. And the said charge was then and there, to wit, at the Rhyd aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, deposed to before the said justice on the oath of the said Charles Symonds, so being such credible witness as aforesaid, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that afterwards, to wit

Shorter exhibited an information *before John Henry Allen,
Esq., a magistrate, that Richard Prosser had, on the 16th of

[*609

on the day and year first aforesaid, and after the said information had as aforesaid been exhi bited to and before the said justice, and after the charge contained in the said information had been so as aforesaid deposed to as aforesaid before the said justice upon the oath of the said Charles Symonds, a credible witness as aforesaid, the said John Henry Allen, Esq., so being such justice as aforesaid, to wit, at the Rhyd aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did in due form of law make, grant, and issue a certain summons, by which said summons the said justice did then and there and thereby require the said Richard Prosser, who then and there was the party charged as aforesaid, to appear before two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of Worcester at the town-hall at Upton-on-Severn, in the said county of Worcester, on Thursday, the 28th day of January in the year aforesaid, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon, to answer to the said information, and make his the said Richard Prosser's defence thereto.

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that afterwards, to wit, on the 28th day of January in the year aforesaid, to wit, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon of the said last-mentioned day, at the town-hall at Upton-on-Severn, in the said county, to wit, at the parish of Upton-on-Severn, in the said county, the said Richard Prosser, in pursuance of and in obedience to the said summons, and as he was required by the said summons, did appear before the said John Henry Allen, Esq., and Edward Gresley Stone, Esq. (then being two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of Worcester), to answer to the said information, and make his the said Richard Prosser's defence thereto. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that afterwards, to wit, at the said town-hall at the parish last aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, on the day and year last aforesaid, to wit, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon of the said last-mentioned day, before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices as aforesaid, the said Richard Prosser pleaded to the said information and to the said charge contained and mentioned in the said information, that he the said Richard Prosser was not guilty of the said offence in the said information in manner and form as in and by the said information was alleged. Thereupon, then, and there, and before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices as aforesaid, an issue was duly and in due form of law joined between the said Joseph Shorter and the said Richard Prosser upon the said plea of the said Richard Prosser.

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that, on the day and year last aforesaid, to wit, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon of the last-mentioned day, at the town-hall aforesaid, at the parish last aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and after the said Richard Prosser had so pleaded as aforesaid, and after the said issue had been so joined as aforesaid, the said information and the said charge contained and mentioned in the said information came on in due form of law to be heard and tried before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices as aforesaid, and the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, then and there being such justices as aforesaid, did then and there proceed to hear and determine the matters of the said information; and the said information and the said charge were then and there heard and tried in due form of law by and before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices as aforesaid. And the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices as aforesaid, did then and there proceed to try, and did then and there, to wit, in the county aforesaid, try the said issue so joined as aforesaid, and did then and there proceed to hear and determine, and did then and there in due form of law hear and determine the matters of the said information; upon which said hearing and trial of the said information and of the said charge contained in the said information, and upon which said hearing and trial of the matters contained in the said information, and upon which said trial of the said issue so joined as aforesaid, John Roberts, late of the parish last aforesaid, in the county of Worcester, labourer, then and there appeared as a witness for and on behalf of the said Richard Prosser, and was then and there duly sworn and took his corporal oath upon the Holy Gospel of God before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, so being such justices aforesaid, that the evidence which he the said John Roberts should then and there give to the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (they the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, justices as aforesaid, then and there having sufficient and competent authority to administer the said oath to the said John Roberts in that behalf).

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that, at and upon the hearing and trial of the said information, and of the charge contained and mentioned in the said VOL. II.-50

*610]

January, 1847, used a gun for the purpose of killing a hare, not being authorized to do so for want of a game certificate; information, and at and upon the trial of the said issue so joined as aforesaid, it then and there, to wit, at the parish last aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, became and was material, and the following questions became and were material questions, and each of them became and was a material question upon the hearing and trial of the said information, and upon the hearing and trial of the charge contained and mentioned in the said information, and upon the hearing and trial of the matters of the said information, and upon the said trial of the said issue so joined as aforesaid, that is to say:

Whether, on the morning of the 16th day of January in the year aforesaid, the said Richard Prosser came to the house of the said John Roberts?

And whether the said Richard Prosser came to the house of the said John Roberts before seven of the clock in the morning of the said last-mentioned day?

And whether, on the day last-mentioned, the said John Roberts and the said Richard Prosser, with Joseph Watkins, left the said house of the said John Roberts to go to the city of Worcester? And whether the said John Roberts and the said Richard Prosser, with the said Joseph Watkins, left the said house of the said John Roberts before seven of the clock of the morning of the said last-mentioned day to go to the city of Worcester?

And whether the said Richard Prosser was ever out of the sight of the said John Roberts from the hour of seven of the clock in the forenoon of the last-mentioned day till the hour of ten of the clock in the forenoon of the said last-mentioned day?

And whether, on the last-mentioned day, the said Richard Prosser walked with the said John Roberts from the said house of the said John Roberts to the city of Worcester?

And whether, between the said hour of seven in the forenoon and the said hour of ten in the forenoon of the last-mentioned day, the said John Roberts and Richard Prosser, with the said Joseph Watkins, walked together to the city of Worcester?

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said John Roberts being so sworn as aforesaid, not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor regarding the laws of this realm, and intending and contriving to pervert the due course of law and justice, then and there, on the said hearing and said trial of the said information, and on the said hearing and said trial of the said charge contained in the said information, and on the hearing and trial of the matters of the said information, and upon the said trial of the said issue so joined as aforesaid, upon his oath aforesaid, falsely, corruptly, knowingly, wilfully, and maliciously, before the said John Henry Allen and Edward Gresley Stone, justices as aforesaid, did depose and swear, amongst other things, in substance and to the effect following, that is to say:

That he the said John Roberts then knew the said Richard Prosser well, and that the said Richard Prosser came to the house of him the said John Roberts before the hour of seven of the clock on the morning of the 16th day of January in the year aforesaid, and that he the said John Roberts and the said Richard Prosser, with Joseph Watkins, left the house of the said John Roberts before seven of the clock of the morning of the said last-mentioned day to go to Worcester (meaning the city of Worcester), and that all three (meaning the said John Roberts, Richard Prosser, and Joseph Watkins), on the morning of the last-mentioned day, walked to Worcester (meaning the city of Worcester), and that the said Richard Prosser was never out of the sight of him the said John Roberts from the said time when he the said Richard Rrosser so as aforesaid left the house of the said John Roberts till they (meaning the said John Roberts, Richard Prosser, and Joseph Watkins) got to Worcester (meaning the city of Worcester), which was soon after ten of the clock in the forenoon of the said last-mentioned day.

Whereas in truth and in fact the said Richard Prosser did not come to the said house of him the said John Roberts before the hour of seven of the clock in the morning of the 16th day of January in the year aforesaid, as he the said John Roberts, at the time of his said deposing and swearing as aforesaid, then and there well knew.

And whereas in truth and in fact the said John Roberts and Richard Prosser, with the said Joseph Watkins, did not leave the said house of the said John Roberts before seven of the clock in the morning of the said last-mentioned day, as he the said John Roberts, at the time of his said deposing and swearing as aforesaid, then and there well knew.

And whereas in truth and in fact the said John Roberts and Richard Prosser, with the said Joseph Watkins, did not leave the said house of the said John Roberts before seven of the clock in the morning of the said last-mentioned day to go to the city of Worcester, as he the said John Roberts, at the time of his said deposing and swearing as aforesaid, then and there well knew.