Misdemeanor: imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding one year. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 15 (ante, p. 978). As to fine and recognizances, see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 38 (ante, p. 962).

Evidence.

Prove that the defendant had in his custody or possession three or more pieces of counterfeit gold or silver coin. They will be deemed to be in his custody or possession if he have them in his personal custody or possession, or knowingly and wilfully have them in the actual custody or possession of any other person, or knowingly and wilfully have them in any dwelling-house or other building, lodging, apartment, field, or other place, open or enclosed, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or not, and whether they be had for his own use or benefit, or for that of another. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 1 (ante, p. 960). So, also, when pieces of counterfeit coin are found on one of two persons acting in guilty concert, and both knowing of the possession, both are guilty under this section. R. v. Rogers, 2 Mood. C. C. 85: R. v. Williams, C. & Mar. 259 (see ante, p. 976). Prove also the defendant's knowledge that the coin was counterfeit, and his intent to utter it. These, of course, can only be proved by circumstances; as, for instance, by evidence of former utterings, or by the fact of the defendant's having in his possession a large quantity of counterfeit coin of like date, and made in the same mould, wrapped up in separate papers, and distributed in different pockets of his dress. R. v. Jarvis, Dears. 552; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 30. See R. v. Fuller, R. & R. 308.

At common law, it was no offence to have possession of counterfeit coin with intent to utter it; R. v. Stewart, R. & R. 288: R. v. Heath, Id. 184; but to procure it with that intent was a misdemeanor. R. v. Fuller,

R. & R. 308: see R. v. Roberts, Dears. 539; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 17 (post, p. 982): cf. Dugdale v. Reg., Dears. 64. And proof that the defendant was the coiner was an answer to an indictment for the common law misdemeanor for procuring (see 1 Russ. Cr. (6th ed.) 198); but this would not be so under the present statute.

MAKING, ETC., COINING TOOLS.

Statute.

24 & 25 Vict. c. 99 (Coinage Offences Act, 1861), s. 14-Tools for counterfeiting British copper coin.] Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), shall knowingly make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession, any instrument, tool, or engine adapted and intended for the counterfeiting any of the [King's] current copper coin ... shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable... to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years. [For other offences created by this section, see ante, pp. 963, 970. The section re-enacts 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 34, s. 12.]

Sect. 24-Tools for counterfeiting British gold or silver coin, or any foreign coin.]-Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), shall knowingly make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession, any puncheon, counter-puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern, or mould, in or upon which there shall be made or impressed, or which will make or impress, or shall be adapted and intended to make or impress the figure, stamp, or apparent resemblance of both or either of the sides of any of the [King's] current gold or silver coin, or of any coin of any foreign prince, state or country (see post, p. 984), or any part or parts of both or either of such sides; or shall make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or shall buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession, any edger, edging or other tool, collar, instrument or engine adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edges with letters, grainings or other marks or figures apparently resembling those on the edges of any such coin as in this section aforesaid, knowing the same to be so adapted and intended as aforesaid; or shall make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or shall buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession, any press for coinage, or any cutting engine for cutting by force of a screw, or of any other contrivance, round blanks out of gold, silver, or other metal or mixture of metals, or any other machine, knowing such press to be a press for coinage, or knowing such engine or machine to have been used, or to be intended to be used, for or in order to the false making or counterfeiting of any such coin as in this section aforesaid, shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life. . . . [This section re-enacts 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 34, s. 10, with the additions italicized. A galvanic battery is a machine within this section. R. v. Gover, 9 Cox, 282.]

Indictment for making, etc., a Puncheon, etc., for Coining Gold and Silver Coin. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24.)

Commencement as ante, p. 963]-one puncheon (" any puncheon, counterpuncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern or mould") in and upon which there was then made and impressed (“in or upon which there shall be made or impressed, or which will make or impress, or which shall be adapted and intended to make or impress") the figure ("figure, stamp, or apparent resemblance") of one of the sides ("of both or either of the sides, or any part or parts of both or either of such sides "), that is to say, the head side of a piece of the King's current silver ("gold or silver ") coin, commonly called a shilling, feloniously, and without lawful authority or excuse, did knowingly make ("make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or buy or sell "); against the form [as ante, p. 465]. As to the venue, see ante, pp. 43, 47, 960. As to the words "without lawful authority or excuse in the precedent, see R. v. Harvey (post, p. 983). The words "knowingly, falsely, and deceitfully," which appeared in the precedent in the 21st edition of this work at p. 875, are not in the statute.

Felony: penal servitude for life or for not less than three years, if the offence relates to British current gold or silver coin or any foreign coin, and penal servitude for not less than three nor more than seven years, if it relates to British current copper coin; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, ss. 14, 24; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1 (ante, p. 235); or in either case, imprisonment, with or without hard labour, not exceeding two years. 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 2

(ante, p. 235). As to requiring the offender to enter into recognizances and find sureties for keeping the peace, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 38 (ante, p. 962). These offences are not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126.

Evidence.

Prove that the defendant made, etc., a puncheon, etc., as stated in the indictment; and prove that the instrument in question is a puncheon or other instrument described in the indictment, and included in the statute. The words in the statute " upon which there shall be made or impressed," etc., apply to the puncheon, which, being convex, bears upon it the figure of the coin; and the words " which will make and impress," etc., apply to the counter-puncheon, etc., which, being concave, will make and impress. Although it is more accurate to describe the instruments according to their actual use, even under earlier statutes they might be described either way. R. v. Lennard, 1 Leach, 85, 90; 1 East, P. C. 170; 2 W. Bl. 807. It is not necessary that the instrument should be capable of making an impression of the whole of one side of the coin; for the words or any part or parts," etc., are introduced into this statute, and consequently the difficulty in R. v. Sutton, 2 Str. 1074, where the instrument was capable of making the sceptre only, cannot now occur. And on an indictment for making a mould "intended to make and impress the figure and apparent resemblance of the obverse side” of a shilling, it is sufficient to prove that the prisoner made the mould, and a part of the impression, though he had not completed the entire impression. R. v. Foster, 7 C. & P. 495. It is not necessary to prove, under this branch of the statute, the intent of the defendant; the mere similitude is treated by the legislature as evidence of the intent; neither is it essential to show that money was actually made with the instrument in question. R. v. Ridgeley, 1 East, P. C. 171, 172. The proof of lawful authority or excuse (if any) for the act lies on the defendant. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24. See Dickins v. Gill [1896] 2 Q. B. 310.

Where the defendant employed a die-sinker to make, for a pretended innocent purpose, a die calculated to make shillings; and the die-sinker, suspecting fraud, informed the authorities at the Mint, and under their directions made the die for the purpose of detecting the prisoner; it was held that the die-sinker was an innocent agent, and the defendant was rightly convicted as a principal under 2 W. 4, c. 34, s. 10 (rep.). R. v. Bannen, 2 Mood. C. C. 309; 1 C. & K. 295.

The making and procuring dies and other materials, with intent to use them in coining Peruvian half-dollars in England, not in order to utter them here, but by way of trying whether the apparatus would answer before sending it out to Peru, to be there used in making the counterfeit coin for circulation in that country, was held to be an indictable misdemeanor at common law. R. v. Roberts, Dears. 539; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 17 (see ante, p. 980). As to the liability of a wife for implements found in a room occupied by her husband, see R. v. Boober, 4 Cox, 272.

Indictment for having a Puncheon, etc., in Possession. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24, ante, p. 981.)

Proceed as in the last precedent to the asterisk*, and then thus].feloniously, and without lawful excuse, did knowingly have in his custody and possession; against the form [as ante, p. 465]. See [note to last

precedent (ante, p. 981). An indictment which charged that the defendant feloniously had in his possession a mould, " upon which said mould was made and impressed the figure and apparent resemblance" of the obverse side of a sixpence, was held bad on demurrer, as not sufficiently showing that the impression was on the mould at the time when he had it in his possession. R. v. Richmond, 1 C. & K. 240. In the above precedent the prisoner's possession is averred to have been "without lawful authority or excuse; it is sufficient, however, if the possession is averred to have been "without lawful excuse," on the ground that there can be no authority which would not also be an excuse, and therefore to negative excuse is to negative authority. R. v. Harvey, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 284; 40 L. J. (M. C.) 63. An indictment which does not expressly or impliedly, as in the case last mentioned, aver the prisoner's possession to have been without lawful authority or excuse, would be bad. Id. As to the venue, see ante, pp. 43, 47, 960.

Felony: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24. See the last precedent.

This offence is not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126).

Evidence.

Prove the custody or possession, that is, that the defendant had the instrument either in his personal custody or possession, or in the actual custody or possession of any other person, or in some dwelling-house or building, lodging, apartment, field or other place, open or enclosed, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or not, and whether the instrument was had for his own use or benefit, or for that of another. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 1 (ante, p. 960); see R. v. Rogers, 2 Mood. C. C. 85 (ante, p. 980). To prove the guilty knowledge, evidence may be given of the defendant's having previously uttered counterfeit money. R. v. Weeks, L. & C. 18; 30 L. J. (M. C.) 141. The guilty knowledge required is the being knowingly in possession of the instrument contrary to the provisions of the statute, i.e., without lawful authority or excuse. A guilty intention in reference to the use or possession of the instrument is not necessary under the statute. R. v. Harvey, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 284; 40 L. J. (M. C.) 63; 11 Cox, 662. Where the prisoner ordered of a diesinker two dies having an apparent resemblance to the sides of a sovereign, whereupon the die-sinker communicated with the police, who in consequence of orders from the Mint told him to furnish the dies to the prisoner, which he accordingly did; it was held that these facts constituted no lawful authority or excuse for the prisoner's possession of the dies. Id. The lawful authority or excuse, if any, must be proved by the defendant. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24. See Dickins v. Gill [1896] 2 Q. B. 310. It must also be proved that the puncheon or instrument is such as is specified in the indictment, and included in the statute. Where the prisoner was indicted for having in his possession a mould on which was impressed a resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling, it was held that, in order to convict, the jury must be satisfied, that, at the time he had it in his possession, the whole of the obverse side of the shilling was impressed on the mould. R. v. Foster, 7 C. & P. 494. The police, entering prisoner's house in his absence, took from some persons inside a plaster-of-Paris mould of a half-crown, part of which was still wet, after resistance on their part, and an attempt by them to destroy the mould. Materials suitable for melting lead and making plaster-ofParis moulds were found in various parts of the house. Shortly afterwards the prisoner came in. He had passed a bad half-crown thirteen days before, but there was no evidence to show that it was made in the mould seized. It was held, that this evidence warranted the conviction

of the prisoner for knowingly and without lawful excuse feloniously having in his custody and possession a mould on which was impressed the figure and apparent resemblance of the obverse side of a half-crown. R. v. Weeks (ubi supra).

Indictment for making, etc., a Collar, etc. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24, `

ante, p. 981.)

Commencement as ante, p. 963]-one collar (" any edger, edging or other tool, collar, instrument, or engine") adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edges with grainings (“ letters, grainings, or other marks or figures") apparently resembling those on the edges of a piece of the King's current gold ("gold or silver") coin called a sovereign, feloniously, and without lawful authority or excuse, did make ("make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession "), he the said J. S. then well knowing the same to be so adapted and intended as aforesaid; against the form [as ante, p. 465]. From this and the last precedent an indictment for having possession of such tools may be easily framed.

Felony: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24. See the precedent ante, p. 981.

This offence is not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126).

Evidence.

The evidence upon this indictment will be the same as on the last two respectively, except that it must also be proved that the defendant knew the instrument to be adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edge. This was a new provision introduced into 2 W. 4, c. 34 (rep.), and was substituted for the words "not of common use in any trade," in the former statute, upon which much difficulty arose. See R. v. Moore, 2 C. & P. 235.

Indictment for making, etc., a Press, etc., for Coinage. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24, ante, p. 981.)

Commencement as ante, p. 963]-one press for coinage ("any press for coinage, or any cutting-engine for cutting, by force of a screw or any other contrivance, round blanks out of gold, silver, or other metal or mixture of metals, or any other machine ") feloniously, and without lawful authority or excuse, did make (“" make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession"), he the said J. S. then well knowing such press to be a press for coinage [or such engine to have been used or to be intended to be used for and in order to the counterfeiting of the King's current gold and silver coin]; against the form [as ante, p. 465]. As to the venue, see ante, pp. 43, 47, 960. From this and the precedent ante, p. 982, an indictment may be easily framed for having possession of a coining-press or instrument for cutting. As to the words "without lawful authority or excuse," see R. v. Harvey (ante, p. 983). Felony: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24. See the precedent ante, p. 981. This offence is not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126).

Evidence.

The evidence will be the same as under the last precedent. In R. v. Bell, 1 East, P. C. 169; Fost. 430, it was held that a coining-press used