66

forging a cheque or order for the payment of money. R. v. Richards, R. & Ry. 193. Where the prisoner was indicted for forging a note, purporting to be a bank of England note, but signed "For self and company, of my bank in England," it was holden that he could not be convicted. Jones's case, 2 East, P. C. 883. Where a writing purporting to be a bill of exchange, was, "Please pay to your order," &c.: Erskine, J., held that it was not a bill of exchange within the statute against forgery. R. v. Bartlett, 2 Mo. & R. 362. So, where a country bank-note for one pound, originally signed, "For Barnard, Barnard, and Green, Thomas Barnard," was altered by the prisoner into a note for forty pounds, but he cut off the name, Thomas Barnard": being indicted for the forgery, the judges held that he could not be convicted; for as it had no signature, it was not a promissory note. R. v. Pateman, R. Ry. 455. So, where an order for the payment of money, signed by a prisoner in his own name, was not addressed to any person, but at the bottom of it were written the words, 'Payable at Messrs. Masterman & Co., White Hart-court, Wm. M'Inerheney": a majority of the judges held that this was not an order for payment of money, and that the prisoner ought not to be convicted. R. v. Ravenscroft, R. & Ry. 161. But where a bill of exchange was not addressed to any person, but a forged acceptance was written across it purporting to be signed by William Sellers, this was holden by all the judges except three, to be so far complete as a bill of exchange, as to be punishable as a forgery. R. v. Hawkes, 2 Moody, 60.

46

But if the instrument be complete, it is not necessary, if it be a negotiable instrument, that it should be in a negotiable state, to render a party punishable for forging or nttering it. Where a forged bill was payable to the drawer's order, and upon the prisoner getting it discounted, he indorsed it in a feigned name, but there was no indorsement in the name of the drawer: the prisoner being convicted, a majority of the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Wicks, R. & Ry. 149. Where a bill is payable to two or more persons, forging the indorsement of one of them is punishable under the statute. R. v. Winterbottom, 2 Car. & K. 37. Where a forged bill was payable to the prisoner himself, and he deposited it (but without indorsing it) with a person to whom he owed a less sum, as a security, until he should pay him the prisoner being convicted, the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Birkett, R. & Ry. 86,

In cases where the genuine instrument, to be valid, must be stamped, it is not necessary that the forged instrument should be on a sufficient stamp, or indeed stamped at all, Hawkswood's case, 2 East, P. C. 955. Morton's case, Id. Where the forgery consisted of an alteration in a country banker's bill, re-issued without a fresh stamp, which by

b b

law was requisite to its validity: this being objected to upon a trial for the forgery, and the point reserved for the opinion of the judges, they were unanimously of opinion that the prisoner ought to be convicted; that although the bill was not valid, for the reason above mentioned, yet it was the same thing as forging a bill upon a wrong stamp, which before had been decided to be a capital felony. R. v. Teague, R. & Ry. 33. Upon an indictment for forging an instrument, or for uttering it knowing it to be forged, the instrument itself must be produced, if it be in the possession of the prosecutor. If it be in the possession of a third party, he must be served with a subpœna duces tecum, to produce it, if not already bound over by recognizance; or if it be in the possession of the prisoner, notice should be given to him to produce it; and if it be not produced at the trial, then, upon calling the witness on his subpoena or recognizance, or upon proof of service of the notice on the prisoner, the prosecutor may give secondary evidence of it. So, if it be proved to have been destroyed-or proved to be lost, and that diligent search has been made for it, and that it cannot be found,-secondary evidence may be given of it. See ante, p. 137. Where a bill of indictment was preferred for the forgery of a deed, and the grand jury stated to the judge that they were informed that the deed alleged to be forged was in the possession of the defendant, and asked whether they could return a true bill if the deed were not produced before them; the judge (Park, J.) told them that if the deed, from being in the possession of the prisoner, or from any other sufficient cause, could not be produced before them, they might receive secondary evidence of its contents. R. v. Hunter, 3 Car. & P. 591. The case was tried at the following assizes, and upon that occasion, notice was given to the prisoner to produce the deed; it was proved that his attorney had given it in evidence in an ejectment, as part of his title, and had afterwards received it back: and Vaughan, B., held that on the prisoner's counsel refusing to produce it, this was sufficient to let in secondary evidence of its contents. R. v. Hunter, 4 Car. & P. 128. Where upon an indictment for forging a deed, it was proposed to give secondary evidence of it, upon the ground that it was in possession of the prisoner, and he had notice to produce it; but it appearing that the assizes had commenced before the notice was given, Parke, J., held that it was not sufficient, as it ought to have been given a reasonable time before the assizes: it was then proved that the prisoner, on an examination on oath upon another occasion as a witness before a magistrate, stated that he had had the deed in question, but that thinking it of no value, he burnt it; the admission of this examination as evidence was objected to, on the ground of its being on oath; but as the prisoner at the time was not charged with this offence, Parke,

J., admitted it, and held that the prosecutor was then entitled to give secondary evidence of the deed; the secondary evidence was a copy of the deed, but as the person who made it said that he had never examined it with the original, Parke, J., said, that under these circumstances there could hardly be a satisfactory conviction; and the prisoner was accordingly acquitted. R. v. Haworth, 4 Car. & P. 254. In a case in a note in East's Reports (How v. Hall, 14 East, 276 n.), Ld. Ellenborough, C. J., said, "I remember an indictment tried before the late Mr. Justice Buller, against a man of the name, I think, of Spragge, for forging a note, which he afterwards got possession of and swallowed; and parol evidence was permitted to be given of the contents of the note, though no notice to produce it had been given; but then indeed it might be said that such a notice would be nugatory, as the thing itself was destroyed."

If there be any variance between the instrument produced and that stated in the indictment, as for instance, if it be stated to be a promissory note, and it be in law a bill of exchange, although this would formerly be a fatal variance, R. v. Hunter, R. & Ry. 511, it may now be remedied by amending the indictment. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1, ante, p. 100.

I shall now proceed to make a few observations on the different instruments, the forgery and uttering of which are punishable by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 66, and subsequent statutes.

Bank of England note, or bank-post bill; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 3. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 2; may be described in the indictment, as "a certain bank of England note," or "a certain bank-post bill," without stating the amount, or further describing the particulars. See 14 § 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 5, ante, pp. 89, 90. The forgery may be proved by any of the bank inspectors, or by any person acquainted with the handwriting of the signing clerk, without calling the latter. By the judges, R. & Ry.378. Besides the forgery and uttering of bank of England notes and post-bills, the following offences are also punishable by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 66:-buying or having forged bank-notes, s. 12; -making or having paper for forged bank-notes, or moulds for the same, ss. 13, 14;-making, having, or using plates for bank-notes, or the blank notes, ss. 15, 16; and see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 6, ante, p. 90.

Bankers' notes; see "Bills of exchange or promissory notes," infra. Making or using the paper or moulds for such notes, is punishable by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 17 ;making, using, or having plates for such notes, s. 18. And this latter section has been holden to extend to the forgery in this country of promissory notes, purporting to be notes of certain bankers in Canada, and is not confined to the notes of bankers in England. R. v. Hannon, 9 Car. § P. 11, 14, by all the judges.

Bill of exchange or promissory note; 1 W. 4, c. 66, 8. 3. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 2; may be described in the indictment as “a certain bill of exchange," or " a certain promissoy note," without stating the date or amount, or by or on whom or in whose favour drawn, or any other particulars. See ante, p. 534. A bill drawn by A. upon B., requiring him to pay a certain sum at such a time after date "without acceptance," though not a very usual form, is still a bill of exchange within the statute. R. v. Kinnear, 2 Mo. & R. 117. But a bill or note under five pounds, is not punishable as a forgery, unless drawn in the form required by stat. 17 G. 3, c. 30. Moffatt's case, 2 East, P. C. 954. And a bill or note under twenty shillings is void; 48 G. 3, c. 88, s. 1 ; and not the subject of forgery. See R. v. Freeth, R. & Ry. 127, ante, 466. Where a promissory note was payable to Sarah Waller and Sarah Doubtfire, stewardesses of a provident society, or their successors in office; and it was objected that as the note, if genuine, would not be negotiable, it was not a promissory note within the meaning of the Act, but a mere engagement to be accountable to the stewardesses of the society for the time being, for a certain sum of money and interest: but the judges held it to be a promissory note within the meaning of the statute, and that the prisoner was properly convicted for forging it. R. v. Box, R. & Ry. 300.

.

Bond; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 10; may be described in the indictment as 66 a certain bond," without stating the amount or date, or the name of the alleged obligor or obligee, or any other particulars. See 1415 Viet. c. 100, s. 5, ante, pp. 89, 90.

Cheque, see "Order for the payment of Money," post, p. 558. Court roll, or copy of court roll relating to any copyhold or customary estate; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 10; may be described in the indictment as "a certain [copy of a court roll,” without naming the manor, or the property to which it relates, or whether it contains an entry of an admittance or surrender, &c. See 14 § 15 Vict. e. 100, s. 5, ante, pp. 89, 90. Deed; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 10; may be described in the indictment as a certain deed," without stating what species of deed, or the parties to it, or the purport of it, or otherwise describing it. See 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, 8. 5, ante, pp. 89, 90. East India bond; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 3. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 2; may be described in the indictment as "a certain East India bond."

66

Exchequer bill; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 3. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 2; may be described in the indictment as a certain exchequer bill." Making or having any instrument or machinery for making the paper for exchequer bills, or plates, &c. is punishable by stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 60, s. 9.

Foreign instruments, that is to say, any written instrument

purporting to be made out of England, the forging or uttering of which would be punishable under stat. 1 W. 4, c. 66, if it purported to be an English instrument,-forging or uttering such foreign instrument in England, is punishable in the same manner as if it purported to be made in England. 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 30. Engraving or using plates for bills of exchange, promissory notes, undertakings or orders for the payment of money, of any foreign prince or state, or bankers, &c., without authority, is punishable by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 19.

Funds: forging, altering, or uttering transfers of stock, powers of attorney, &c., 1 W. 4, c. 66, 8. 6. 1 Vict. c. 84, 8. 1; forging the attestation to such power of attorney, or uttering the same; 1 W. 4, c. 66, 8. 8;-falsely personating the owner of stock; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 6. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 1; -making false entries in the books of the public funds, or altering the entries therein; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 5. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 1; making out false dividend warrants. 1 W. 4, c. 66, 8.9.

Order, warrant, or request for the delivery or transfer of goods, or for the delivery of any note, bill, or other security for the payment of money; 1 W. 4, c. 66, 8. 10; may be described in the indictment as "a certain order for the delivery of goods," &c., or "a certain order for the transfer of goods," or "a certain request note for the delivery of goods," &c. The words of the statute are, "warrant, order, or request:" warrant seems to mean a written authority to some servant or agent in whose custody the goods, &c., are, for the delivery or transfer of them :-"order" is nearly of the same import, and implies that the party making it has a right to command what he orders, and that the party to whom it is directed has no option whether he will comply with it or not;

R.

but the word "request" " implies that it is optional with the party to whom it is sent, to comply with it or not, such as an order for goods to a shopkeeper, or the like. Where it is a request merely, it seems that an indictment describing it as "a warrant, order, and request," would be bad. R. v. David Williams, 20 Law J. 106 m. A tasting order, that is, an order from a merchant having wine in bond, directing the warehouse keeper to permit a person to taste it, is an order for the delivery of goods, within the meaning of the statute. v. Illidge, 2 Car. & K. 871. A request note may be, and usually is, by a person who has no interest in the goods he desires to be delivered. R. v. James, 8 Car. & P. 292. Where it was in this form: "Mr. Turner, please let the lad have a hat about nine shillings, and I will answer for the money, Ed. Barrett," and it was objected that it was a guarantie, and not an instrument within the Act: Gurney, B., held that although it purported to guarantee the price of the hat, still it was also a request for the delivery of it; and