its recourse upon the last indorser, it will be careful to CHAP. XV. send these notices to the addresses of those on whom

recourse is desired. In practice, these are often sent

under cover to the customer who discounted the bill-he knows the address of the indorser with whom he dealt can send on the notice or not, as may be necessary-for as a rule the bank is satisfied with its right against its own customer, and can leave him to conduct his own business.

In the case of a bill for collection dishonoured, the Bills for collection. form of notice is simpler; the bank does not require to claim against its customer in respect of it, but merely informs its principal of the dishonour, within the same time as if the banker were the holder and the principal the last indorser; and he upon receipt of such notice has himself the same time for giving notice as if the agenti.e., collecting bank-had been an independent holder. The bank, therefore, does not make out more than one notice, nor does it claim against anyone; but the case would be different if a banker's lien existed over the document.

bills.

If the dishonoured bill should be a foreign one, Foreign appearing on the face of it to be such, it must be protested for non-payment or non-acceptance, as the case may be, and if it be not so protested, the drawer and indorsers are discharged. A bill which has been protested for non-acceptance may be subsequently protested for non-payment.

"Noting" is prior to "protest," and refers to the Noting. minute made by the notary public on the bill at the time of its dishonour; the minute includes a mark or reference to the notary's register. In order to make his note, the notary, by himself or by a clerk, makes a separate presentment of the bill.

The "Protest" is a formal notarial certificate of Protest. the fact of dishonour, subsequently written out and based upon the noting.

CHAP. XV.

Act § 94.

When a bill requires to be protested, and the services of a notary cannot be obtained at the place of dishonour, any householder or substantial resident of the place may in the presence of two witnesses give a certificate signed by them, attesting the dishonour of the bill, and the certificate shall in all respects operate as if it were a formal protest of the bill.

CHAPTER XVI.

FORGERIES (1).

The subject of forgeries is a very wide one, in the CHAP. XVI. sense that you may meet with forgeries in almost any direction and of the greatest variety.

Forgery has been defined in the common law as "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another's right"; in another phrase, “the making of a false document with intent to defraud."

In New South Wales the criminal law is chiefly contained in statutory enactments now consolidated in the Crimes Act, 1900. For the purposes of the Crimes Act forging is defined; it means "the counterfeiting or altering in any particular, by whatsoever means effected, with intent to defraud, of an instrument, or document, or of some signature, or other matter or thing, or of any attestation, or signature of a witness, whether by law required or not, to any instrument, document, or matter, the forging of which is punishable under this Act."

It can be readily perceived that this definition, of Uttering. the Crimes Act, is wide enough to include the shorter one already quoted, viz., "the making of a false document with intent to defraud," which has the merit of being short and easy to remember.

Of course the offence of forgery is complete when the false document is made with criminal intent. But no harm to anyone can result until the forgery is uttered or put off upon some innocent person; and this is not of necessity done by the forger. Therefore the uttering

CHAP. XVI. of a forgery is a separate offence, of the same class as forgery and punishable to an equal extent; and the words utter or uttering are specially defined. When used in the Crimes Act with reference to a forgery, they mean "that the person uttered, offered, disposed of, or put off the same with intent to defraud, knowing it to be forged."

Illustrations of forgery.

Protection against the forgery or uttering of banknotes or bills of exchange is given by the Crimes Act, under which punishment may extend to fourteen years penal servitude, but in cases where the forgery is only by a wrongful representation of authority, as an indorsement per pro., the limit of punishment is only ten years.

The first thing that occurs to many, when the word forgery is used, is the direct forgery of a signature, but really so many other acts amount to forgery that it may be well to give a few illustrations.

Thus, drawing a cheque without authority on behalf of an employer and signing for him per pro. by an employee would constitute forgery, if this false pretence of authority on the part of the employee were made with intent to defraud; but if the criminal intent were absent, it would not be forgery, though none the less ineffective to bind the pretended drawer.

Putting an address to the name of the drawee of a bill of exchange while the bill is in course of completion, with the intention of making the acceptance appear to be that of a different person will be forgery. Similarly, to fill in a blank cheque already signed with a proper signature would be a forgery if done by a party having no authority and with dishonest intention; so, to fraudulently increase the amount of a regular cheque and make it appear to be a cheque for a different amount is forgery. And where a bill of exchange, payable to AB, came to the hands of another AB, who fraudulently indorsed it,

that was forgery. So it was, where a prisoner had written CHAP. XVI. certain names across the back of cheques drawn by himself in favour of self, or bearer. Also, where one S. signed a draft in the name of H. Turner, jun., of Noah's Row, Hampton Court, there being no such place or per

son.

In all these instances, of course, the presence of a criminal intention is necessary, or the crime of forgery has not been committed.

It is worth while to see where lawyers have drawn the line between forgery and false pretences.

It is considered by the writers of text-books that if Forgery and false preA should personate B and draw a cheque in his assumed tences. name (whether of a fictitious or an existing person) upon a bank with which he had in his assumed name opened a genuine account by the actual payment of money to his credit, that would not be a false document and that if, when such an account were depleted, A, by issuing a further and valueless cheque on the same account, obtained any credit or goods, that would be false pretences simply. That is to say, if A knew the cheque would not be paid, the fraud would make him guilty of false pretences; but the document could not be termed a false document, and thus the offence could not amount to forgery.

A New South Wales case is reported in some of our Reconstructing a torn local books, where it was held that the filling in a date cheque. on a cheque reconstructed from torn pieces of the original cheque, which pieces the owner (who was the drawer, and who had never issued the cheque, but torn it up to destroy it) had abandoned, was not forgery, and that to obtain money dishonestly by such a cheque was false pretences merely. I should have thought it was forgery or uttering, as the case might be. I should have thought, if the drawer, not having dated the cheque nor issued it, tore it up in that incomplete state to destroy it, that it