adduce any formal proof of the bankruptcy, and that the evidence of the worthlessness of the note was sufficient to lay before the jury. At the request of the counsel for the prosecution the learned judge said he would consider whether he would reserve the point. Griffitts then addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that there was no proof that the prisoner knew that the note was bad.

The prisoner was convicted, and thereupon sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

At Oxford, on the following day,

TALFOURD, J., said, I have consulted my brother Williams with reference to the case of John Smith, tried before me, at Reading yesterday, on a charge of obtaining a pony by means of a note of a bank which had stopped payment, and that learned judge agrees with me, that there is no ground whatever for granting a case, for the evidence was quite sufficient without proof of the bankruptcy. On another ground it appears to me that the note was worthless. It was more than six years old, and therefore no action could be maintained upon it.

[Until this case, the amount and nature of the requisite proof of the worthlessness of notes of banks that have stopped payment, where money had been fraudulently obtained by means of them, had not been determined. In two cases indeed, it had been decided that the evidence adduced was insufficient. In Rex v. Flint, Russell, and Ryan, 460, the notes on their face appeared to have been exhibited under a commission of bankruptcy against the bankers; the words importing the memorandum of exhibit, had been attempted to be obliterated; but the names of the commissioners remained on each of them. A witness was also called who stated that he recollected the bank stopping payment upwards of seven years before, but he added that he knew nothing but what he saw in the papers, and heard from people who had bills there It appeared that the particular notes, the subject of the indictment, had not been presented at the place where they were issued, or at the London bankers, where they were made payable. It was held by all the judges that the evidence was defective in not sufficiently proving that the notes were bad. In Rex v. Spencer (3 C. & P. 420), it was proved that the prisoner had been told the bank had stopped payment, and it was shown that the banking house was shut up, and that two of the partners had become bankrupts, but it appeared on cross-examination that a third partner had not become bankrupt. Mr. Justice Gazelee directed an acquittal, on the ground, that as it appeared the note might be ultimately paid, he could not hold that the prisoner was guilty of a fraud in passing it away. This case can hardly be upheld at the present day. It is to be observed, however, that the indictment did not allege as a pretence, that the note was then of the value appearing on its face, or that it was a valuable security, but merely that it was a good and available note of the firm.

With respect to the opinion expressed by the learned judge in the case in the text, that the date of the note was sufficient evidence of its worthlessness, it must be observed that this, in a great measure, depends upon whether the Statute of Limitations runs from the date of a banker's re-issuable note. It is submitted that it does not, although there does not appear to be any case in which this point has been decided. Mr. Serjeant Byles, in his Treatise on Bills of Exchange, says (6th Edit. p. 272), “It is conceived that if the statute have run out against the holder of a bill or note, payable at a day certain, and he then transfers it, the transferee's right of action is barred. For he, as transferee of an overdue bill, can stand in no better situation than his transferee. He, like his transferee, has a debt, but has not the right of action, and has notice of the loss;" but he adds, in a note to this passage, "It may be otherwise with a bill or note payable on demand; a banker's re-issuable note for example." And again at p. 273, after stating in the text that on a bill or note payable on demand, the statute runs from the date of the instrument, and not from the time of the demand, he adds in a note, "Quære tamen, if the note be a re-issuable one, and re-issued, or if it be payable at a particular place.”—J.E.D.]

REG.

บ. SMITH.

1853.

False Pretences
-Evidence.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

BERKSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES, 1853.

Reading, March 3.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE TALFOURD.)

REG. v. GOODE. (a)

Concealment of birth-Disposal of the body.

On an indictment against the mother for the murder of her illegitimate child, it appeared that the body of the child was found, a few hours after its birth, on the floor of an attic in a house where the prisoner lived as domestic servant, the head severed from the body, and both lying in sheets which had been removed from the bed-room below, which was occupied by the prisoner and her mistress, and where there was evidence to show that the birth had taken place, but it was doubtful whether the severance of the head from the body was effected there or in the attic:

Held, that there was no evidence to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the statutable misdemeanor of endeavouring to conceal the birth. THE prisoner, Anne Goode, was indicted for the wilful murder of her illegitimate child, at Wallingford, on the 10th of September, 1852.

Skinner, for the prosecution.

J. J. Williams, for the defence.

The prisoner was a servant in the family of Mrs. Winmill, of Wallingford. On the morning of the 10th of September she appeared to be very ill, and her mistress sent for a surgeon. In the meantime the prisoner went up stairs, and when she came down she fell into a chair in a state of insensibility, and was so found by the surgeon. On examining the bedroom where she slept, which was also the room where her mistress slept, blood was observed on the floor; and in an attic above, the dead body of a male child was found on the floor wrapped in bed sheets, which had been removed from the room below. The head of the child was separated from the body, and a table knife was lying on the floor near it. According to the medical evidence the child had not been born more than two hours, and there was no doubt of its having been born alive. The prisoner stated, immediately after the discovery of the body

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

of the child, that it was dead, and she cut off its head. The prisoner had not been suspected of pregnancy, and it appeared from her youth and inexperience that she might have been herself unconscious of the fact. Although it was proved that the knife was usually kept in the kitchen, it appeared that it might, at the time of its use, have been lying in the attic. The sheets, with the body, were found in the middle of the room. At the close of the case for the prosecution, some discussion took place as to whether there was any evidence of an endeavour to conceal the birth of the child within the statute of 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 14.

Williams wishing to have the learned judge's opinion on that point before addressing the jury on the capital charge,

TALFOURD, J., said this was not a case of concealment in his opinion.

Williams then addressed the jury for the prisoner on the charge of murder, contending that the prisoner was unconscious at the time.

Verdict-Not guilty.

REG.

V.

GOODE.

1853.

Concealment

of birth.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

WORCESTERSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES, 1853.

Worcester, March 11.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.)
REG. v. NISBETT. (a)

Forgery-Fictitious person-False description-Evidence of other utterings to prove guilty knowledge.

Putting off a bill of exchange of A., an existing person, as the bill of exchange of A., a fictitious person, is a felonious uttering of the bill of a fictitious drawer.

Where N. uttered a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by M., and at the time of the uttering represented M. to be a clerk at a railway station, and there was evidence to show that M. had authorized the use of his name as drawer of the bill, but that the prisoner knew that M. was not then, although he formerly had been, a clerk at a railway

station:

Held, that there was evidence from which the jury might find that the prisoner uttered the name of M. as the name of a fictitious person, so as to support a charge of feloniously uttering the bill, knowing it to be forged.

Held, also, that statements made by the prisoner with reference to M. on a previous occasion when he applied to get a bill discounted, were admissible in evidence.

AMES NISBETT, clerk, was indicted for forging a bill of exchange for the sum of 3007, with intent to defraud; and in the second count, with uttering the same bill, knowing it to be forged. In a third count, the prisoner was charged with forging the acceptance in these words, "Accepted; William Robert Nisbett: payable at Messrs. Scott and Co., bankers, Cavendishsquare, London," with intent to defraud; and in a fourth count, with uttering the acceptance, knowing it to be forged. From the evidence of the prosecutor, Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, a solicitor at Worcester, it appeared that, in the month of February or March, 1851, the prisoner, who was then curate of Cleobury Mortimer, in Shropshire, came to him, and said he was in want of a temporary

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

loan of 3002, having been disappointed by his bankers, and produced the following bill of exchange :

"London, March 1st, 1851.

"£300. Six months after date pay to the Rev. James Nisbett, or order, the sum of three hundred pounds for value received. "RICHARD MITCHELL.

"To William Robert Nisbett,

66

Fort Nisbett,

Barrell-a-Bane, Ireland."

Accepted; William Robert Nisbett: payable at Messrs. Scott and Co., bankers, Cavendish-square, London."

The bill bore the prisoner's indorsement on the back. On the prosecutor inquiring who the parties to the bill were, the prisoner said, one was his brother, who was his tenant in Ireland; the other was Mr. Mitchell, a clerk in the goods department at Nine Elms station. The witness wrote in pencil on the bill the address of the drawer, and gave the prisoner an order on his London agent for 255l., retaining 451. for discount. The bill was dishonoured when due, and the prosecutor went to London and made inquiries at the Nine Elms station, but could not find any such person as Richard Mitchell there.

Mr. Philip Philemon Newman, superintendent of the goods department at the Nine Elms station in 1851, proved that no clerk of the name of Mitchell was employed there between September, 1847, and November, 1851, when the witness ceased to fill the office of goods superintendent, and became waggon master and travelling inspector.

Huddleston (for the prosecution), now proposed to give evidence of other utterings of forged bills of exchange to persons named Stallard, Rea, and others.

G. Browne (for the prisoner), objected that no other offence than that charged could be given in evidence: (Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Denison's Crown Cases, 264.) There it was held, by the Court of Criminal Appeal, that, on the trial of an indictment containing counts for stealing, and for receiving the property of A., knowing it to be stolen, evidence of the possession, by the prisoner, of other property stolen from other persons at other times, is not admissible to prove either the stealing or the receiving.

Huddleston, contrà, referred to the opinion of Cresswell, J., in Reg. v. Green (3 Car. & Kir. 209), shewing that Reg. v. Oddy did not apply to cases of other utterings. And in Wylie's case (1 Bosanquet and Puller's New Rep. 92; 2 Leach, 983), it was expressly held that, to prove the guilty knowledge of an utterer of a forged bank note, evidence may be given of his having previously uttered other forged notes, knowing them to be forged.

WILLIAMS, J., thought the evidence proposed to be given was admissible, and therefore he should receive it.

A witness was then examined, who stated that the prisoner had

REG.

v.

NISBETT.

1853.

Forgery.