2. Indictment bank note, the indictment could not be supported; and that this defect for, in general. could not be supplied by the representations made by the party when he passed off the note. (Jones's case, Dougl. 300; 2 East's P. C. 883). So in J. Reading's case, 1793, where the indictment charged that the prisoner being possessed of a bill of exchange, purporting to be directed to J. King, by the name &c. of J. Ring, forged the acceptance of the said J. King, judgment was arrested, because the bill did not purport to be drawn on J. King, as stated in the indictment. And Buller, J., in delivering the opinion of the judges at the Old Bailey, observed that the indictment, as drawn, was absurd and repugnant in itself; for the name and description of one person or thing could not purport to be another. (Reading's case, O. B., Sept. 1793; 2 Leach, 590; 2 East's P. C. 981). Again in Gillchrist's case, the indictment was for forging “a paper writing, purporting to be an order for the payment of money, dated, &c. with the name of Thos. Exon thereunto subscribed, purporting to have been signed by Thos. Exon, clerk, and to be directed to George Lord Kinnaird, Wm. Moreland, and Thomas Hammersley, of, &c. bankers and partners, by the name and description of Messrs. Ransom, Moreland, and Hammersley, for the payment of the sum of 10%., &c.;" the tenor of which said false writing, &c. is as follows, viz. "Messrs. Ransom, Moreland, and Hammersley, please to pay to Mr. Brooks, or bearer, the sum of ten pounds for Thos. Exon, Sept. 11th, 1794;" with intent to defraud the said George Lord Kinnaird, &c. A motion was made in arrest of judgment; and upon a conference with the judges in Easter Term, 1795, it was resolved by ten judges present, that the judgment should be arrested, because the word purport imports what appears on the instrument itself. It means the apparent and not the legal import; and that this bill of exchange could not purport to be directed to Lord Kinnaird, because his name did not appear on the face of the bill. (Gillchrist's case, O. B., 1795; 2 East's P. C. 982; 2 Leach, 657).

Sewing to the parchment on which the indictment is written impres sions of forged notes, taken from engraved plates, is not a legal mode of setting out the notes in the indictment. (R. v. Harris, R. v. Moses, R. v. Balls, 7 C. & P. 429).

Foreign notes were set out in an indictment in the original language, but the translation omitted some words which were in a margin or border round the body of the note, and denoted the year in which the notes were issued, and it appeared that without these words the notes would not be capable of being circulated in the country to which they belonged: -Held, that the translation was imperfect, and the special counts setting out the notes consequently bad. (Id.) Describing a foreign note wholly in the English language is not sufficient in an indictment for forgery, notwithstanding the stat. 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 123, s. 3; but this objection, provided the description is in the words of the stat. creating the offence, can only be taken advantage of by demurrer, and is so cured after verdict by the stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 21. (Id.; and see R. v. Warshaner, 1 Moody, C. C. 466).

Where the forged instrument is actually within the meaning of the statute on which you intend framing your indictment, but does not suffi ciently appear to be so on the face of it, you must, if the instrument be set out, not only set out a literal copy of it in the indictment, but must also add such averments of extrinsic facts as may be necessary to make it appear upon the face of the record that the forged instrument is one of those intended by, and described in, the statute. (Jervis, Arch, C. L. 9 ed. 363). Thus, for instance, where, by the usage of a public office, the bare signature of a party upon a navy bill operated as a receipt, an indictment for forging such a receipt, setting forth the navy bill and indorsement, and charging the defendant with having forged "a certain receipt for money, to wit, the sum of twenty-five pounds, mentioned and contained in the said paper, called a navy bill, which forged receipt was as follows, that is to say, 'William Thornton, William Hunter,'

3. Of the

was holden bad, because it did not show, by proper averments, that these signatures imported a receipt. (R. v. Hunter, 2 Leach, 624; 2 East, P. great seal, &c. C.928). So, where an indictment charged the defendant with forging a receipt in the handwriting of Henry Hargreaves, as thus :"Received, H. H.," it was holden that the indictment was bad; because there was nothing to show what H. H. meant. (R. v. Barton, R. & M. 141). In like manner, it was holden, that an indictment for forging the word "settled," at the bottom of a bill, must show, by proper averments, that it is a receipt. (R. v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 910). But this latter decision was overruled by the more recent one in R. v. Martin, 1 Mood. C. C. 483; 7 C. & P. 549, S. C.; in which it was held, that the words, "Settled, Sam. Hughes," written at the foot of a bill of parcels, were held of themselves to import a receipt of acquittance, and that no averment was necessary that the word "settled," meant a receipt or acquittance. And where, upon an indictment for forging a receipt, it appeared that the receipt was written at the foot of an account, and the indictment stated the receipt thus-"8 March, 1773. Received the contents above by me, Stephen Withers," without setting out the account at the foot of which it was written, it was holden sufficient. (R. v. Testick, 1 East, 181, n.; and see R. v. Houseman, 8 C. & P. 180; R. v. Vaughan, M. 276; R. v. Boardman, 2 M. & Rob. 147; Jervis, Arch. C. L. 9 ed. 363).

Where the indictment, in setting out the forged instruments, also set out the attestation at the foot of it, as part of the instrument, but it appeared in evidence, that, when the defendant subscribed the instrument, the attestation was not written on it; it was holden, nevertheless, to be no variance, (R. v. Dunn, 2 East, P. C. 976); and the 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 123 makes no difference in this respect.

The intent to defraud, and the party to be defrauded, must be stated Statement of inin the indictment, and the proof must agree with such allegation. But tent to defraud. it need not state the manner in which the party is to be defrauded, for that is matter of evidence. (R. v. Powell, 2 Bla. Rep. 787; 2 East, P. C. 976; 1 Leach, 76). The intent mentioned in the statute 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 66, is, to defraud "any person whatsoever," and the word "person" comprehends the king, foreign princes and states, bodies corporate, companies, and societies of persons not incorporated, and any person or number of persons who may be intended to be defrauded, whether they reside in England or elsewhere; and the indictment upon this statute may name one only of such company, society, or number of persons, and allege the offence to have been committed with intent to defraud the persons so named, and another or others, as the case may be. 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 66, s. 28. (Jervis, Arch. C. L. 9 ed. 364). If the intent be to defraud a joint-stock bank, it may be laid to be to defraud "A. B. (one of the shareholders) and others," and they are not bound to prosecute in the name of their public officer. (R. v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 143).

The presentation of a forged order to a person in her maiden name, who has since been married, will support an averment in an indictment of intent to defraud her husband. (Rex v. Carter, 7 C. & P. 134).

If there be any doubt as to the party intended to be defrauded, other counts should be added to meet it.

In an indictment for uttering a forged instrument, it is not necessary to state to whom it was disposed of. (R. v. Holden, R. & R. C. C. 154; 2 Taunt. 334).

Statement to

whom instrument was disposed of.

seal or sign

III. Forgery of the Great Seal, Sign Manual, &c. By 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 66, s. 2, "if any person shall forge Forging the great or counterfeit, or shall utter, knowing the same to be forged or counter-manual, &c. feited, the great seal of the United Kingdom, his Majesty's privy seal, any privy signet of his Majesty, his Majesty's royal sign manual, any of

4. Of bank notes, wills, bills, &c.

Exchequer bill, exchequer debenture, East India bond, bank note, will, bill of exchange, promis

rant or order for

payment of money.

his Majesty's seals appointed by the twenty-fourth article of the unio to be kept, used, and continued in Scotland, the great seal of Ireland, the privy seal of Ireland, every such offender shall be guilty of hig treason, and shall suffer death accordingly: provided always, that nothin contained in an act passed in the seventh year of the reign of King Wi liam the Third, intituled 'An act for regulating of trials in cases of tra son and misprision of treason,' or in an act passed in the seventh year the reign of Queen Anne, intituled 'An act for improving the union the two kingdoms,' shall extend to any indictment, or to any proceeding thereupon, for any of the treasons hereinbefore mentioned."

But the punishment for this offence is now transportation for life, for not less than seven years, or imprisonment, with or without hai labour, and with or without solitary confinement, such confinement n exceeding one month at any one time, nor three months in any one yea (See ante, 117, 118). .

IV. Forgery of Bank Notes, Wills, Bills, &c. By 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 66, s. 3, "if any person shall forg or alter, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off, knowing the same t be forged or altered, any exchequer bill or exchequer debenture, or an indorsement on or assignment of any exchequer bill or exchequer deben sory note, or war- ture, or any bond under the common seal of the united company of mer chants of England trading to the East Indies, commonly called an Eas India bond, or any indorsement on or assignment of any East Indi bond, or any note or bill of exchange of the governor and company o the Bank of England, commonly called a bank note, a bank bill of ex change, or a bank post bill, or any indorsement on or assignment of an bank note, bank bill of exchange, or bank post bill, or any will, testa ment, codicil, or testamentary writing, or any bill of exchange, or any promissory note for the payment of money, or any indorsement on o assignment of any bill of exchange or promissory note for the paymen of money, or any acceptance of any bill of exchange, or any undertaking warrant, or order for the payment of money, with intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to defraud any person whatsoever, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon."

If any instrument, however designated, is in law a

forger of such

instrument may

be indicted under this act.

Sect. 4. "Where by any act now in force any person is made liable to the punishment of death for forging or altering, or for offering, uttering, will or bill &c. the disposing of, or putting off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any instrument or writing designated in such act by any special name or description, and such instrument or writing, however designated, is in law a will, testament, codicil, or testamentary writing, or a bill of exchange or a promissory note for the payment of money, or an indorsement on or assignment of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange, or an undertaking, warrant, or order for the payment of money, within the true intent and meaning of this act, in every such case the person forging or altering such instrumant or writing, or offering, uttering, disposing of, or putting off such instrument or writing, knowing the same to be forged or altered, may be indicted as an offender against this act, and punished with death accordingly."

Punishment.

Bank notes.

The punishment for this offence is now the same as that noticed ante, 117. That of death is abolished.

Bank notes.]-Where it appeared that the defendant sold a forged bank note to an agent employed by the bank to procure it from him, the judges held this to be within the act, although it was objected that the prisoner had been solicited to commit the act proved against him, by the bank themselves, by means of their agents. (R. v. Holden, 2 Taunt. 334; R. & R. 154). So, where A. gave B. a forged note to pass for him, and upon B.'s tendering it in payment of some goods, it was

stopped: the majority of the judges held that A., by giving the note to B., was guilty of dispossing of and putting away the note, within the meaning of the act. (R. v. Palmer, et al. 1 N. R. 96; R. & R. 72; R. v. Gila, 1 Moody, C. C. 166).

The 1 Geo. IV. c. 92, s. 3, enacts, That the bank may cause the name of their signing clerk to be impressed upon their notes by machinery, and all bank notes on which the name of the person authorized by the bank to sign them shall be impressed by machinery shall be good and valid to all intents and purposes as if such notes had been subscribed in the proper handwriting of such person, and shall be deemed and taken to be back notes, and may be described as such in all indictments, and in all criminal and civil proceedings whatsoever.

4. Of bank notes, wills, bills, &c.

W-This offence may be committed by the false making of the Wills. will of a living person, (R. v. Murphy, 2 East, P. C. 949; R. v. Sterling, 1 Leach, 99; R. v. Coogan, Id. 449); or of a non-existing person, (R. v. Anery, &C. & P. 596); or of a will signed with the wrong christian name of the person whose will it purports to be. (R. v. Fitzgerald, 1 Leach, 20. On an indictment for uttering a forged will, which, together with writings in support of it, it was suggested had been written over pencilmarks that had been rubbed out, it was held that the evidence of an engraver, who had examined the paper with a mirror, and traced the pencil-marks, was admissible on the part of the prosecution. (R. v. T. Wilians, & C. & P. 434). The probate unrepealed is not conclusive evidence to bar an indictment for forging a will. (R. v. Buttery, R. & R. 42; Jervis, Arch. C. L. 9th ed. 378).

Bills of Exchange and Notes.]-A bill payable ten days after sight, purporting to have been drawn upon the commissioners of the navy, by a lieutenant, for the amount of certain pay due to him, has been holden to be a bill of exchange within the repealed statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25. (R. v. Chisholm, R. & R. 297).

So a note, promising to pay A. and B., "stewardesses" of a certain benefit society, or their "successors," a certain sum of money on demand, has been holden to be a promissory note within the meaning of that set, although it appeared that the society was not duly enrolled, as directed by act of Parliament: for, supposing the note to be a genuine instrument, if the successors would not be entitled to the money, the personal representatives of A. and B. would; and to be within the meanTag of the act, it is not necessary that the note should be negotiable. (B. v. Bor, 6 Taunt. 325; R. & R. 300; see R. v. M'Keay, 1 Moody, C. C.190).

Bat, in order that a promissory note should be within the meaning of the art, it is necessary that it should be for the payment of money only; and, therefore, a country bank note for the payment of one guinea, "in cor Bank of England notes," was holden not to be within the statute. (R. v. Wilcocks, 2 Russ. 456; see 1 Leach, 180; 2 East, P. C. 26; Jervis, Arch. C. L. 9th ed. 380).

A document in the ordinary form of a bill of exchange, but requiring e drawee to pay to his own order, and purporting to be indorsed by the drawer, and accepted by the drawer, cannot, in an indictment for forry or uttering, be treated as a bill of exchange. (Reg. v. Bartlett, 2 M. & Rob. 362). But though there be no person named as drawee of a Fil, a party may be guilty of uttering a forged acceptance on it. (R. v. Horkes, 2 Mood. C. C. 60; see R. v. Kinnear, 2 M. & Rob. 117).

The prisoner having promised in payment for some goods an acceptance by a London banker, gave a bill addressed to, and purporting to be accepted by, Williams & Co., No. 3, Birchin Lane, London; it was proved that Williams, Burgess, & Co., of No. 20, Birchin Lane, had not accepted the bill, and that no other bankers of the name of Williams & Co. were known in London, but no evidence was adduced to show that VOL. III.

K

Bills of exchange and notes.

4 Of bank notes, wills, bills, &c.

Orders for payment of money.

Williams & Co., of No. 3, Birchin Lane, had not accepted the bill: held, that there was no forgery proved against the prisoner, by ter judges against one. Bayley, J., absent. (R. v. Watts, 3 B. & B 197).

If the prisoner write another's name across a blank stamp, on which after he is gone, a third person who is in league with him write a bill o exchange; semble, that this is not a forgery of the acceptance of a bil of exchange by the prisoner. (Reg. v. Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 582).

Orders for payment of money.]-A draft upon a banker is a warran and order for the payment of money within the statute, (R. v. Wil loughby, 2 East, P. C. 944); so is a bill of exchange. (R. v. Shepherd Id. 994; 1 Leach, 226, S. C.).

So is a foreign letter requesting a correspondent in England to ad vance money, it being proved that such letters are in the course o business treated as orders. (Reg. v. Raake, 2 Mood. C. C. 66; 8 C. § P. 626, S. C.).

So is a forged paper as follows: "This is to certify that R. R. has swept the flues and cleaned the bilges, and repaired four bridges of the Princess Victoria. J. N., 4l. Os. 10d.:" it being proved that, by the course of dealing between the parties, this voucher, if genuine, would have authorized L. & Co. to pay the 47. Os. 10d. (Reg. v.

& P. 41).

Rogers, 9 C. So where the instrument was an order to pay the prisoner, or order, the sum of four pounds five shillings, being a month's advance on an intended voyage to Quebec, in the ship Mary Ann, as per agreement with G. M., master; and the prisoner had written in the margin of the order, "On receiving this cheque I agree to sail, and to be on board within sixteen days of the date of this cheque;" it was held an order for the payment of money within the statute. R. v. Bamfield, 1 Mood. C. C. 417).

So is an order to pay "all my prize money due to me for my services on board his Majesty's ship Leander," without specifying any particu lar sum. (R. v. M'Intosh, 2 East, P. C. 942).

On an indictment for forging and uttering a "warrant and order for the payment of money, to wit, a warrant and order for the payment of 851.," and for forging an acquittance and receipt for money, to wit, for 857., it was proved that J. M. had paid 857. into a country bank, and had taken an accountable receipt for that amount, and that the course of dealing at the bank was to treat such receipt with the depositor's name thereon, as an order for the payment of the money deposited, and interest. The defendant took the receipt to the bank, and having writ ten the name of J. M. thereon, delivered it to the bankers, who paid him 877. 178. 6d. for principal and interest. He was held to have been rightly convicted. (Reg. v. Atkinson, 1 C. & Mar. 325).

The forging of a paper by which the supposed writer promises to pay to W. B., or order, 100%., or such other sum, not exceeding the same, as he may incur by reason of his becoming one of the sureties to the sheriff of Y., for T. R., a sheriff's officer, is a forgery of an undertaking for the payment of money, under the stat. 1 Will. IV. c. 66, s. 3. (Reg. v. Need, 8 Car. & P. 623; 2 Mood. C. C. 62, S. C.).

The statute is not confined to orders or warrants in commercial transactions. (R. v. M'Intosh, 2 East, P. C. 942; R. v. Graham, Id. 945; R. v. Rushworth, R. & R. C. C. 317).

On the other hand, where the defendant drew a bill, "Please to pay the bearer on demand fifteen pounds, and accompt it to your humble servant, C. H. Ravenscroft," which was his name; and when the instrument was uttered there was forged upon it " Payable at M. & Co.'s, Wm. M'Inchary;" and it appeared that Mr. M'Inchary kept cash at M. & Co.'s who were bankers; it was holden, that this was not an order for the payment of money, there being no special averment that it