YORK Sp. Assizes, 1827. Au written like An is a soner into the box, and desired him to write his name on a sheet of paper; which he did; and Bayley, J., then handed it to the jury, together with the imputed forgery. Anonymous. Prisoner was charged with forging a promissory fatal variance. note for the payment of money. The note was in tended to be dated August, and had on the left hand side of the heading, the letters "Au." The letter "u," however, was written so like the letter n, that it could not pass for a u. Hullock, B., held it to be a fatal variance*. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1829. A bill drawn, indorsed, and Musgrave's Case. Prisoner was indicted, for that he, having in his By 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, s. 3-In order to prevent justice being defeated by clerical or verbal inaccuracies, it is enacted, "That in all informations or indictments for forging, or in any manner uttering any instrument or writing, it shall not be necessary to set forth any copy or fac-simile thereof; but it shall be sufficient to describe the same in such manner as would sustain an indictment for stealing the same." Note. It is to be observed that this statute does not provide for the case of a party charged with having a forged instrument in his possession. possession a certain bill of exchange, of which the accepted by following is the tenor: "No. 159. 66 "Two months after date, pay to myself or order prisoner, and made payable at Sir John Lubbock's & Company, held not to be prima facie evidence of an intended forgery, without the sum of nineteen pounds and five shillings for additional value received, as advised by— "J. H. MUSGRAVE." circum- "To Sir John Lubbock, Bart. & Co. Bankers, London." did forge, &c. an acceptance of the tenor following: "Accepted, payable "At Sir John Lubbock, Bart. & Co.'s with intent to defraud the said Sir John Lubbock, Bart. & Co. The bill was drawn by the prisoner, indorsed by him, and accepted by him. On being taken into custody, he did not deny or attempt to disguise the fact; neither did he personate, or in any manner show an intention to personate, any other person. The bill was paid away to one of the parties named in the indictment, as intended to be defrauded by it; but it was never presented for payment, and consequently not refused. No person was called to negative the authority of Sir John Lubbock to the prisoner to accept the bill for him, or on his behalf; neither was there any other evidence given of an intent to defraud Sir John Lubbock, or any of the persons named in the other counts of the indictment. Littledale, J., thought the counsel for the prosecution had left the case short in not proving an attempt to defraud Sir John Lubbock, or some one specifically mentioned in the indictment; and was further of opinion, that the acceptance, being proved to be in the handwriting of the prisoner, was not in itself prima facie evidence of a forgery, sufficient to put him on his defence. But, after some discussion, in which Hardy for the prosecution strongly contended that it was, he allowed the case to go to the jury, intimating, that he should reserve the point in the event of a conviction. He then told the jury, that if they thought the prisoner, when he paid away the bill, intended that the party to whom he paid it should add his name, it was an incomplete acceptance. But, that if they considered that he uttered it with a fraudulent intent, meaning that it should pass as the acceptance of the drawee, they would then find him guilty; and he would take the opinion of the Judges, as to whether it was an acceptance within the terms of the act of parliament. The prisoner was acquitted. Note. The learned Judge conceded the point, that, if it had been written by Sir John Lubbock himself, without his signature being added, it would have been recoverable upon in an action at law. Obs. The indictment contained no averment, that the acceptance purported to be, or was intended to operate as, the acceptance of the drawee. William Moor's Case. a Prisoner was indicted for having embezzled a bill of exchange. In evidence, it was proved to be bank post bill. Hullock, B., held the variance fatal, and directed an acquittal. Note.-In Birkett's case, R. & R. C. C. 251, (for forgery), the Judges held that a bank post bill might properly be described as a bank bill of exchange, though, as a bill of exchange generally, it could not. In Rex v. Fanny Chard, R. & R. C. C. 488, the Judges held, that they could not take notice that what is now called a bank post bill, fell within any of the descriptions in 2 Geo. 2, c. 25*. Also, that the instrument not being set out in the CARLISLE Sp. Assizes, 1827. A bank post bill described as a bill of exchangeVariance fatal. See now 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3, which expressly names a bank post bill as a subject of forgery. LANCASTER 1831. The uttering an Irish pro was. indictment, they could not say what a bank post bill And further, that, as the instrument was not a bill at the time the statute passed, the prisoner should have been acquitted; a pardon was therefore recommended. The indictment was for larceny in stealing a bank post bill made for the payment of 107., contrary to 2 Geo. 2, c. 25. James Kirkwood's Case. Prisoner was indicted for uttering a forged Bank missory note of Ireland note. in England is an offence indictable in England. It was objected by Cottingham, for the prisoner, that the 45 Geo. 3, c. 89, which made the uttering of promissory notes for the payment of money felony, did not extend beyond England and Scotland, the words of the statute being "Whereas it is expedient that such provisions should extend and be in force in every part of Great Britain," omitting all mention of Ireland; and inasmuch as the note in question purported to be drawn in Dublin, and was made payable there, it was not an offence to utter the same in England. He cited Dick's case, 1 Leach, 68, which was an indictment on 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, the original forgery act, for uttering a Scotch note at Carlisle*. But there was a clause in that act restricting its operation to England. The Judges, in Dick's case, were nearly equally divided, |