Page images
PDF
EPUB

*CHAPTER THE THIRD.

[*112

OF THE MAKING, MENDING, OR HAVING IN POSSESSION ANY INSTRUMENTS FOR COINING.

By the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 24, "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 which 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 Queen's current gold or silver coin, or of any coin of any foreign prince, state, or country, 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 or 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, at the discretion of the Court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three years,— -or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor, and with or without solitary confinement." (a)

This clause is framed from the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 10, and is extended to tools for making foreign coin, and to other tools and machines than those mentioned in the former enactment, and to tools for cutting blanks out of mixed metals.

Where two galvanic batteries were found in the prisoner's house, with white metal and other things plainly indicating that they had been used for coining, and it was proved that counterfeit coin is electro-plated before it is put in circulation, and that that is generally done by the aid of galvanic batteries, it was [*113 held that the batteries were machines within the meaning of this section.(b) Sec. 25. "Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), shall knowingly convey out of any of Her Majesty's mints any puncheon, counter-puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern, mould, edger, edging or other tool, collar, instrument, press, or engine used or employed in or about the coining of coin, or any useful part of any of the several matters aforesaid, or any coin, bullion, metal, or mixture of metals, shal', in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be kept in penal servitude for life or for any term not less than three years,- -or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor, and with or without solitary confinement."(c)

Sec. 14. " Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), shall knowingly make or mend, or begin or proceed

ing, J.

(a) As to hard labor, &c., see ante, p. 104. See the interpretation clause, ante, p. 95. (b) Reg. v. Grover, 9 Cox C. C. 282. The Common Serjeant, after consulting Keat(e) This clause is taken from the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 11. As to hard labor, &c., see ante, p. 104; and the interpretation clause, ante, p. 95.

VOL. 1.-7

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 Queen'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, at the discretion of the Court, to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years, and not less than three years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without .hard labor, or with or without solitary confinement."(d)

Several points arose as to the tools or instruments which were within the words of the 8 & 9 Will. 3. Where the prisoner was indicted for having in his custody a press for coinage without any lawful authority, a question was raised whether a press for coinage was one of the tools or instruments within that clause of the Act on which the indictment was founded; and a majority of the judges held that it was.(e) In another case, the prisoner was convicted of having in his custody, without lawful excuse, one mould made of lead, on which was impressed the resemblance of one of the sides of a shilling, viz., the head side of a shilling; and it was submitted to the judges whether the mould found in the prisoner's custody was comprised under the general words "other tool or instrument before mentioned," so as to make the unlawful custody of it high treason; and also whether, if it were so comprised, it should not have been laid in the indictment to be a tool or instrument in the words of the Act. And the judges were unanimously of opinion that this mould was a tool or instrument mentioned in the former part of the statute, and therefore comprised under these general words; and that as a mould is expressly mentioned by name in the first clause of the Act which respects the making or mending, it need not be averred to be a tool or instrument so mentioned. (ƒ)

*114]

The prisoner was indicted for having in his custody a puncheon made of iron and steel, upon which was impressed the resemblance of the head side of a shilling, without lawful authority, &c. Several puncheons were found in the prisoner's lodgings, together with a quantity of counterfeit money, and he had them knowingly for the purposes of coining. These puncheons were ready for use; but it was impossible to say that the shillings which were found were actually made with these puncheons, the impressions being too faint to be exactly compared; but they had the appearance of having been made with them. The manner of making these puncheons was as follows: a true shilling was cut away to the outline of the head; that outline was fixed on a piece of steel, which was filed or cut close to the outline, and this made the puncheon; the puncheon made the die, which is the counter-puncheon; a puncheon is complete without letters, but it may be made with letters upon it; though from the difficulty and inconvenience it is never so made at the mint; but after the die is struck the letters are engraved on it; a puncheon alone, without the counter.puncheon, will not make the figure; but to make an old shilling or a base shilling current, nothing more is necessary than the

(d) This clause is taken from part of sec. 12 of the 2 Will. 4, c. 34. As to hard labor, see ante, p. 104. See the interpretation clause, ante, p. 95.

(e) Bell's case, Fost. 430.

(ƒ) Lennard's case, 1 Leach 90; 1 East P. C. c. 4, s. 17, p. 170. Another point was afterwards raised in this case upon the form of the indictment. The doubt was, whether the mould which was found in the prisoner's custody, it having only the resemblance of a shilling inverted, viz., the convex parts of the shilling being concave in the mould, and vice versâ, the head or profile being turned the contrary way of the coin, and all the letters of the inscription reversed, was not properly an instrument which would make and impress the resemblance, stamp, &c., rather than an instrument on which the same were made and impressed, as laid in this indictment, the statute seeming to distinguish between such as will make and impress the similitude, &c., as the matrix, die, and mould; and such on which the same is made and impressed, as a puncheon, or counter-puncheon, or pattern. But a great majority of the judges were of opinion that this evidence sufficiently maintained the indictment; because the stamp of the current coin was certainly impressed on the mould in order to form the cavities thereof. They agreed, however, that the indictment would have been more accurate had it charged that he had in his custody a mould that would make and impress the similitude," &c., and in this opinion some, who otherwise doubted, acquiesced.

instrument now produced. They may be used for other purposes, such as making seals, buttons, medals, or other things, where such impressions are wanted. Eleven of the judges (absente, De Grey, C. J.) were unanimously of opinion that this was a puncheon within the meaning of the Act; for the word "puncheon" is expressly mentioned in the statutes, and will, by the means of the counter-puncheon or matrix, "make or impress the figure, stamp, resemblance, or similitude of the current coin ;" and these words do not mean an exact figure, but if the instrument impress a resemblance in fact, such as will impose on the world, it is sufficient, whether the letters are apparent on the puncheon or not; otherwise the Act would be quite evaded, for the letters would be omitted on purpose. The puncheon in question was one to impress the head of King William; and the shillings of his reign, though the letters are worn out, are current coin of the kingdom. The puncheon made an impression like them, and the coin stamped with it would resemble them on the head side, though there were no letters. This was compared to the case mentioned by Sir Matthew Hale, (g) that the omission or addition of words in the inscription of the true seals, for the purpose of evading the law, would not alter the case.(h)

[*115

The part of the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, which related to instruments to mark the edges of coins, was not confined to such instruments as were in use when the Act passed; but extended to newly-invented instruments, which would produce the same effect; and it was not confined to such instruments as, used by the hand, unconnected with any other power, would produce the effect. A collar, therefore, marking the edge of coin, by having the coin forced through it by machinery, is an instrument within the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, though this mode of marking the edges is of modern invention, and though the collar cannot be used by itself, but must be used in conjunction with other machinery.(i)

It was decided, that having a tool or instrument (of such sort as is included in the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26) in possession for the purpose of coining foreign gold coin not current here, was not within that statute;(i) but it is expressly included in the present clause.

[ocr errors]

Where a die calculated to make shillings is made by an innocent agent, the party procuring him to make such die is the principal. The prisoner was indicted for feloniously making a die which would impress the resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling. The prisoner applied to a die-sinker to sink dies for counters for two whist clubs, stating that it was their practice to play with counters with one side resembling coins, and that they wished to have counters stamped by dies made under the following directions:-" Four dies for whist counters, obverse head of Queen Victoria, as in the shilling coin. Reverse, Blandford Whist Club, established 1800.' Obverse the shilling, as in coin, with wreath, &c. Reverse, Exeter Whist Club, established 1800.'" The die-sinker, entertaining suspicions, applied to the agent of the Mint, and communicated the order to him. The agent sent to the officers of the Mint in London, and the die-sinker was by them directed to execute the prisoner's order. The prisoner afterwards desired to have the obverse of one of the pieces, and the obverse of the other finished first, and they were so. When they were finished, they formed a die for the coining of a shilling. For the prisoner, it was objected that he could not be convicted, as he had not himself done anything in the making of the die, and that he was not answerable in this form of charge for the act of the die-sinker; that the die-sinker having acted under the instructions of the Mint, no felony whatever had been committed, and that the prisoner should have been indicted for a misdemeanor in inciting the diesinker to commit a felony. But, upon a case reserved, the judges thought the die-sinker an innocent agent, and held the conviction good.(h)

On an indictment for having in possession a die made of iron and steel, proof of

(g) 1 Hale 184; 2 Hale 212, 215; Robinson's case, 2 Roll. Rep. 50; 23, p. 86.

(h) Ridgelay's case, 1 Leach 189; 1 East P. C. c. 4, s. 18, p. 171. (i) Rex v. Moore, R. & M. C. C. R. 122; s. c., 2 C. & P. 235.

(a) Bell's case, 1 East P. C. c. 4, s. 17, p. 169; Fost. 430.

(k) Reg. v. Bannen, 2 M. C. C. R. 309; 1 C. & K. 295 (47 E. C. L. R.).

East P. C. c. 2, s.

a die made of either material will be sufficient; and it seems that if the indictment state that the die was made of *iron, steel, and other materials, proof that *116] it was made of any material would be sufficient; and that it would not be necessary even to prove the exact material. The indictment was for having in possession a die made of iron and steel, a witness who saw the die said it was made of iron; another witness, who had not seen it, said that dies were usually made of steel, and that iron dies would not stand; and the judges held that this evidence would support the indictment, for it was immaterial to the offence of what the die was made, and proof of a die either of iron or steel, or both, would satisfy this charge.(1)

In proceeding upon the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, it was not necessary to prove that money was actually made with the instrument in question.(m)

The having tools for coining in possession, with intent to use them, is a misdemeanor at common law. An indictment, which was framed as for a misdemeanor at common law, charged that the defendant, without any lawful authority, had in his custody and possession two iron stamps, each of which would make and impress the figure, resemblance, and similitude of one of the sceptres impressed upon the current gold coin of this kingdom, called half-guineas, with intent to make the impression of sceptres on divers pieces of silver coin of this realm, called sixpences, and to color such pieces of the color of gold, and fraudulently to utter them as lawful half-guineas. Lord Hardwicke, at the assizes, doubted whether the bare possession was unlawful, unless made use of, or unless made criminal by statute; but upon the indictment being removed into the Court of King's Bench by certiorari,(n) Page, Probyn, and Lee, justices, held, that the bare having such instru ments in possession, with the intent charged, was a misdemeanor.(0)1

It seems that the degree of similitude to the real coin which the tools or instruments must be capable of impressing in order to bring the case within the statute, must be governed by considerations similar to those which have been stated with respect to the counterfeit coin itself (p) Whether the instrument in question be calculated to impress the figure, stamp, resemblance, or similitude of the coin current is a question for the jury; and it is clear, that the offence is not confined to an exact imitation of the original and proper effigies of the coin. (9)

Upon an indictment which alleges that a prisoner feloniously had in his possession a mould having the resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling impressed upon it, it must be proved that the entire impression was upon the mould. The prisoner was charged in one count with having in his possession a mould, "upon which was impressed the figure and apparent resemblance of one of the sides (that is to say) the obverse side of the King's current coin called a shilling," and in another count the word "reverse" was substituted for "obverse;" the moulds when

produced appeared not to have a complete *impression of the obverse and *117] reverse sides of a shilling, but only the outside rim, and a slight portion of the other parts of the impression, the entire impressions, however, appeared to have been upon them at one time, but part had been obliterated. It was held, that if the jury believed that no more than part of the impression was impressed upon the moulds while the prisoner was in possession of them, that he ought to be acquitted.(r) But where an indictment charges that the prisoner made a

(1) Rex v. Oxford, East. T. 1819, MS. Bayley, J., and R. & R. 382; s. P., Rex v. Phillips, R. & R. 369.

(m) Ridgelay's case, 1 East P. C. c. 4, s. 18, p. 172.

p. 85.

(n) The defendant was brought up by habeas corpus, and committed to Newgate. (0) Rex v. Sutton, Rep. temp. Hardw. 370. But see the remarks on this case, ante, (p) Ante, p. 98. (r) Rex v. Foster, 7 C. & P. 494 (32 E. C. L. R.), Patteson, J.

(g) 1 East P. C. c. 4, s. 18, p. 171.

1 On an indictment for counterfeiting coin, the criminal participation of the defendant may be inferred by the jury from the fact that a large quantity of spurious coin and various instruments and appliances for coining were found in his possession, unless such possession be satisfactorily explained by him: United States v. Burns, 5 M'Lean 23; United States v. King, Ibid. 208; State v. Antonia, 3 Brevard 562; State v. Odell, Ibid. 552.

mould, which was intended to impress the resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling, it is sufficient to prove that the prisoner made a mould, which would make a part of the impression. One count charged the prisoner with making a mould, "which said mould was intended to make and impress the figure and apparent resemblance" of the obverse side, and another the reverse side, of a shilling: the evidence being the same as in the former case; it was held, that the term "intended" did not mean in a state to make an entire impression, and therefore if the prisoner had only begun to make, the intention to make the whole might be inferred, though only part was actually made, and consequently that the evidence was sufficient.(s)

But where upon an indictment for having in possession a mould, upon which was made the figure of one of the sides of a shilling, it appeared that the mould had a perfect impression on one side of it; but that there was no channel, through which the metal runs, and the previous case was cited; Maule, J., held that a mould must be a thing by means of which a person may be able to make a coin; and that a thing, by means of which coin cannot be made, cannot be a mould; for it requires something to be done to make it a mould. The proof, therefore, was insufficient. As to the words "any part or parts" contained in the clause, they did not refer to any part of the mould, but to any part of the impression.(t)

Where a mould was made to resemble the whole of one side of a coin, which had been worn partly away by use, an indictment under the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s 10, might charge the possession of a mould on which was impressed the figure of one of the sides of such coin, as the words "part or parts" of the sides in that section applied to cases where several moulds were used to make one side of a coin.(u)

An indictment charging that the prisoner had in his possession a mould “ upon which was made and impressed the figure" of one of the sides of a coin, is bad for not showing that the figure was on the mould at the time when the prisoner had it in his possession. The words "then and there" should be introduced before the word "made." (u)

Weeks and two other men and two women were indicted for having in their possession a mould impressed with one side of a half-crown. Weeks had occupied a house for a month, and the police one night went to the house and found the other prisoners there. The men attacked the police, whilst the women snatched up something which they threw into the fire. The police preserved *part [*118 of this, which proved to be fragments of a plaster of Paris mould of a half-crown, parts of which were still wet. Weeks shortly afterwards came to the house. The women called out to him that the police were there. He nevertheless came in. The house had two rooms on each floor, and a quantity of plaster of Paris was found in a cupboard up stairs, with several bottles of liquid. In a cupboard down stairs an iron ladle, such as might have been used for melting metal, was found on the hearth in one of the rooms up stairs was found a small portion of white metal and some fragments of plaster of Paris moulds. Thirteen days before Weeks had passed a bad half-crown; but there was no evidence to show that it was made in the mould found in the house. The jury found that Weeks knew that the mould was in his house. It was held that Weeks was rightly convicted, as the mould was found in the house of which he was the master, and that the evidence of the uttering of the half-crown by him was rightly admitted to establish the scienter.(v)

On an indictment against husband, wife and boy aged ten years, for having in possession a mould on which was impressed the obverse side of a shilling, it appeared that the boy was apprehended whilst passing a counterfeit half-crown, and on the officer going to the house where he said he resided the husband was found in an upper room. In the lower room the mould and various coining implements were found, and whilst the officer was searching the wife came in, and soon after

(a) Rex v. Foster, 7 C. & P. 495 (32 E. C. L. R.), Patteson, J.

(t) Reg. v. Macmillan, Cox C. C. 41.

(a) Reg. v. Richmond, 1 C. & K. 240 (47 E. C. L. R.), Rolfe, B. See Rex v. Silcot, 3 Mod. 280.

(v) Reg. v. Weeks, 1 L. & C. 18.

« EelmineJätka »