vour it is given, is a warrant for the payment of money. Reg. v. Reed, payment of money. Reg. v. Raake, 8 C. & P. 623; 2 Lewin, C. C. 185. 8 C. & P. 626; 2 M. C. C. 66. An indorsement on a letter of credit is not an order, as not being within the original mandate. Reg. v. Wilton, 1 F. & F. 391-Bramwell. Undertakings for the Payment of Money.]-A guarantie is the subject of forgery, though no consideration appears, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 3, gives validity to such an undertaking. Reg. v. Coelho, 9 Cox, C. C. 8. Indictment under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3, for uttering a forged undertaking for the payment of money-Held, that the statute applied as well to a written promise for the payment of money by a third person as to a like promise of payment by the supposed party to the instrument. Reg. v. Stone, 1 Den. C. C. 181; 2 C. &. K. 364. A forged instrument, by which the supposed maker of it, in consideration of goods to be sold to P., undertakes to guarantee to the vendor the due payment for all such goods so to be sold to P., but so that the supposed maker should not be liable beyond 107., is a forged undertaking for the payment of money. Ib. Forging a document purporting to guarantee a master to a certain amount in money against the dishonesty of a clerk, is forging an undertaking for the payment of money within 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23. Reg. v. Joyce, 10 Cox, C. C. 100; L. & C. 576; 11 Jur., N. S. 472; 34 L. J., M. C. 168; 13 W. R. 662; 12 L. T., N. S. 351. The forging of a paper, by which the supposed writer promises to pay B., or order, 1007., or such other sum, not exceeding the same, as he may incur by reason of his becoming one of the sureties to the sheriff of Y., for J. R., a sheriff's officer, is a forgery of an undertaking for the Requests for the Payment of Money.]-Before the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 24, a forged request to pay a third person money on account of the supposed writer would not sustain an indictment for forgery, describing it either as an undertaking, warrant or order for the payment of money. Reg. v. Thorn, 2 M. C. C. 210; Car. & M. 206. A customer in the country had an account open with a wholesale house in London; a letter purporting to come from him was delivered at their place of business; it was in the following form :-" I shall feel obliged by your paying Mr. B. 21. 78. 8d., and debiting me with the same. You will please have a receipt, and add the amount to invoice of order on hand." It appeared to be the practice of the house in London to pay country customers on requests of a similar description. The party who sent it by an innocent agent, and obtained the money on it, was indicted for forging and uttering it. The instrument was described in the indictment as an undertaking, a warrant and an order, each for the payment of 21. 7s. 8d. The prisoner having been convicted of uttering, the judges held the conviction wrong, as the instrument was neither an undertaking, a warrant, nor an order. 1b. It was not an offence, under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, to forge an indorsement upon a warrant or order for the payment of money; nor if a party wrote on the back of a bill of exchange payable to R. A., "Received for R. A.," and signed his own name to it, was he guilty of forging a receipt. Rex v. Arscott, 6 C. & P. 408-Littledale, Vaughan and Bolland. But see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 24. Receipts or Acquittances for Money.]-A person makes a copy of a receipt, and adds to it other words, | v. Thomas, 2 Leach, C. C. 877; 2 as, for example, "in full of all de- East, P. C. 934. mands," which were not in the original; it is a forgery, if the copy is offered in evidence on the supposed loss of the original. Upfold v. Leit, 5 Esp. 100-Ellenborough. A stamped memorandum, importing that A. B. had paid a sum of money to C. D., but not importing any acknowledgement from C. D. of his having received it, was not such a receipt as 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, s. 1, made it capital to forge or utter. Rex v. Harvey, R. & R. C. C. 227. An entry of the receipt of money or notes made by a cashier of the Bank of England in the bank book of a creditor was an accountable receipt for the payment of money within 7 Geo. 2, c. 22. Rex v. Harrison, 1 Leach, C. C. 180; 2 East, P. C. 927, 988. Forging an indenture of apprenticeship and a receipt for the apprenticeship fee, with intent to defraud the stewards of the Feast of the Sons of the Clergy, was forgery. Rex v. Jones, 1 Leach, C. C. 366; 2 East, P. C. 991. The name of the holder of a navy bill, signed on a proper receipt stamp, and affixed to the navy bill, did not on the face of it purport to be a receipt for money within 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, and 7 Geo. 2, c. 22; but as the money was paid on such signature, and it always had been considered as a receipt at the Navy Office, it might, by proper averments in the indictment, be brought within the protection of the statutes as a receipt for money. Rex v. Hunter, 2 Leach, C. C. 624; 2 East, P. C. 928, 977. If a person, employed by the executors of a public accountant to settle the account of the testator with government, procure fabricated vouchers, and deliver them to the Navy Board, in order to exonerate the estate of the testator from an extent, it was a forging and uttering within 2 Geo. 2, c. 25. Rex A scrip receipt not filled up with the name of the subscriber is not a receipt for money within the statutes against forgery. Rex v. Lyon, 2 Leach, C. C. 597; 2 East, P. C. 933. A servant employed by her mistress to pay tradesmen's bills, received from her a bill of a tradesman named Sadler, together with the money to pay that and other bills. She brought the bill again to her mistress, with the words "paid Sadler" on it, the word Sadler being written with a smalls, and there being no initial of the christian name of the tradesman. The mistress stated that she believed the words to be a receipt and that no application was made for the money afterwards :-Held, on an indictment for forgery, that the words "paid Sadler," under the circumstances, imported a receipt or an acquittance for the money, and was not merely a memorandum by the servant of her having paid the bill. Reg. v. Houseman, 8 C. & P. 180-Denman. If a high constable issues his receipt for the payment of a county rate amounting to 31. 58. 9d., and having received the money, writes a receipt at the bottom of the paper, "Received the above rate, J. P.,” and after that, the sum 31. 58. 9d. in the receipt is fraudulently altered to 31. 15s. 9d.; this is a forgery of a receipt within 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10, and may be laid with intent to defraud any rated inhabitant (by name) of the parish on which the rate is imposed (and others). Reg. v. Vaughan, 8 C. & P. 276-Gurney. The words Settled, Samuel Hughes," at the foot of a bill of parcels, import a receipt and an acquittance. Rex v. Martin, 7 C. & P. 549; 1 M. C. C. 483. The prisoner, a pay-serjeant of the artillery, obtained from the paymaster a receipt for a sum of money as part of subsistence of a company for the month of May. He afterwards erased May and inserted June, and gave the receipt to a tradesman, who, according to the usual practice, advanced the sum to the prisoner, and sent the receipt to the agent of the regiment, who paid the amount. The indictment for forgery, describing the instrument as a receipt, was good. Rex v. Hope, 1 M. C. C. 414. The provisions of the 7 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 38, extend to the forging and uttering a receipt, or other document, relating to a Chelsea pension, supposed to be payable, and are not confined to cases of forging and uttering receipts and other documents relating to pensions in actual existence. Reg. v. Pringle, 9 C. & P. 408; 2 M. C. C. 127. An instrument purporting to be an agreement, and stamped as such, and reciting that an arrangement had been made between the parties thereto in consideration of a certain sum, the receipt of which was thereby acknowledged, and then proceeding to release the party paying it from all further claim in the matter in respect of which it was paid, is a receipt or an acquittance under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10, and may be so described in an indictment for forgery. Reg. v. Hill, 2 Cox, C. C. 246. Where it was shewn to be the custom of bankers to give receipts on the deposit of money in the following form:-"Received of A. eighty-five pounds to his credit. This receipt not transferable"; and to repay the money with interest on the return of this receipt, with A.'s name written on it:-Held, that forging the name of A., and receiving the money due on its return, was a forging and uttering an acquittance for 851. Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 M. C. C. 215; Car. & M. 325. It was the practice of the treasurer of a county, when an order had been made on him for the payment of expenses of a prosecution, to pay the whole amount to the attorney for the prosecution, or his clerk, and to require the signature of every person named in the order to be written on the back of it, and opposite to each name the sum ordered to be paid to each person:---Held, that such a signature is not a receipt, the forging of which is an offence against 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10, and that it is merely an authority to the treasurer to pay the amount. Reg. v. Cooper, 2 C. & K. 586-Erle. A scrip certificate in a railway company is not an accountable receipt, or an acquittance or a receipt within 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10; therefore the forgery of such a document is not a felony, but a misdemeanor only. Clark v. Newsam, 1 Exch. 131; 5 Railw. Cas. 69; 16 L. J., Exch. 296; S. P. Reg. v. West, 1 Den. C. C. 258; 2 C. & K. 496; 2 Cox, C. C. 437. A turnpike toll-gate ticket is a receipt for money within 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23. Reg. v. Fitch, L. & C. 159; 9 Cox, C. C. 160; 8 Jur., N. S. 624; 10 W. R. 489; 6 L. T., N. S. 256. The prisoner was a collector of rates for a corporation. While in the service he received cash from the prosecutor on account of a rate, for which he gave a receipt. After he had left the service, he called on the prosecutor for the balance, which was paid, and for a receipt. The prisoner altered the figures in the former receipt, which then appeared as a receipt for the entire rate due: -Held, not to be a forgery. Reg. v. Sargent, 10 Cox, C. Č. 161— Pigott. Uttering Receipts.]-A. applied to B. to lend him money, and gave him the name of the defendant as a surety. B. went to him, and, to satisfy himself of his respectability, asked to see his receipts for rent and taxes. The defendant placed to his own use. He was convicted upon an indictment which charged him with uttering a receipt for money, the jury finding that he presented a false account, with intent thereby to obtain credit for having duly paid into the bank the various sums which he had received, and to be continued in his office of treasurer with a view to obtain other monies from the society, which he might fraudulently appropriate to his own use:-Held, that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Smith, 9 Cox, C. C. 162; L. & C. 168; 8 Jur., N. S. 572; 31 L. J., M. C. 154; 10 W. R. 583; 6 L. T., N. S. 300. in the hands of B., for his inspection, three documents purporting to be receipts for poor rates, with the intent to induce B. to advance money to A. One of these receipts was forged. B. inspected the documents, and then returned them to the defendant:-Held, that the defendant might be convicted of uttering a forged receipt, and that, for the purpose of rendering him liable, it was not necessary that the receipt should be used to get credit upon it by its operating as a receipt, but that it was sufficient if he used it fraudulently to obtain money by means of it. Reg. v. Ion, 6 Cox, C. C. 1; 2 Den. C. C. 475. Held, also, that it was immaterial whether the money to be obtained by means of it was for himself or for any other person. Ib. The prisoner, servant of A., applied to B. for payment of 17s. due from B. to A. B. refused to pay it without A.'s receipt. The prisoner went away and returned with a document, as follows:-"Received from Mr. Bendon, due to Mr. Warman, 178. Settled." Whereupon B. paid the debt:-Held, a question for the jury whether the prisoner tendered the receipt as the handwriting of A., which would make him liable on this indictment; or as his own, which would make his act a false pretence. Reg. v. Inder, 1 Den. C. C. 325; 2 C. & K. 635. A paid secretary of an unenrolled friendly society, of which his wife was a member, was directed by the society to pay into a savings bank 401., given him for that. purpose. At the next meeting he handed in a book, indorsed "Savings Bank, Newstreet, Huddersfield," and on which was written, " 1865, Oct. 30, received 401." The indorsement on and entry in the book were forgeries, and the money had not been paid into the bank. He was convicted of uttering this document, knowing it to be forged-Held, that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Moody, L. & C. 173; 9 Cox, C. C. 166; 8 Jur., N. S., 574; 31 L. J., M. C. 156; 10 W. R. 585; 6 L. T., N. S. 301. It being the duty of a railway station-master to pay B. for deliverA. was treasurer of an unenrolled ing and collecting parcels, he falsefriendly society, and it was his duty ly told B. that the company had deto receive contributions from the termined to pay him only for colmembers, and pay them into a bank lecting, and not for delivering, and in his own name for the benefit of accordingly then continued to pay the society. At meetings of the so- him only for collecting, but he conciety he produced to the members a tinued to charge the company with fictitious pass-book, purporting to payments purporting to be made to vouch for the payment of monies by B. for delivering. In order to furhim into the bank. This book did nish a voucher to the company for not truly represent the state of these pretended payments, the stathe account between himself and tion-master, after paying B.'s servthe bank. He also a various ant the sum entered under the head times drew out monies which he "collecting," in the printed form had paid in, and appropriated them supplied by the company, and ob taining his receipt in writing for that amount, without his or B.'s knowledge, put a receipt stamp under the servant's name, and wrote thereon in figures a sum, being the aggregate for collecting and delivering: -Held, that he was properly convicted of forgery. Reg. v. Griffiths, Dears. & B. C. C. 548; 4 Jur., N. S. 442; 27 L. J., M. C. 205; 7 Cox, C. C. 501. Receipts for Goods.]-A pawnbroker's duplicate of goods pledged with him is an accountable receipt for goods. Reg. v. Fitchie, Dears. & B. C. C. 175; 3 Jur., N. S. 419; 26 L. J., M. C. 90; 7 Cox, C. C. 257. 66 (u) Wills. By 24 & 25 Vict c. 98, s. 21, "whosoever, with intent to defraud, "shall forge or alter, or shall offer, "utter, dispose of, or put off, know"ing the same to be forged or altered, any will, testament, codicil or "testamentary instrument, shall be guilty of felony, and being con"victed 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 five years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to "be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and with or with"out solitary confinement." (Similar to 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3.) Before 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, there could be no forgery of a will of lands, attested only by two witnesses. Rex v. Wall, 2 East, P. C. 953. To forge a will was a capital offence, although the supposed testator was living. Rex v. Sterling, 1 Leach, C. C. 99; 2 East, P. C. 950; S. P. Rex v. Coogan, 1 Leach, C. C. 449; 2 East, P. Č. 1001. The forgery of the will of a nonexisting person is an offence within the statute. Reg. v. Avery, 8 C. & P. 596-Patteson. A., an attorney, was employed by B., as his solicitor, to put out money upon mortgage. C. applied to A. to procure him the advance of money on mortgage, and to act as his solicitor in procuring it. C. stated to A. that he was the owner of certain freehold lands, and produced a forged will in proof of his title, which he placed in the hands of A. B. advanced the money, A. acting as his solicitor, by preparing the mortgage-deeds:-Held, that, on the trial of C. for uttering the forged will, A. was bound to produce the will, and also to give evidence of what C. said to him as to the advance of the money. Ib. On an indictment for forging a will, the probate of that will unrepealed is not conclusive evidence of its validity, so as to be a bar to the prosecution. Rex v. Battery, R. & R. C. C. 342; S. P. Rex v. Gibson, R. & R. C. C. 343, n.-Ellenborough. In an indictment for forging a will, an intent to defraud the heirat-law was charged in one count, and in another an intent to defraud persons to the jurors unknown. The only one found guilty was the son of the testator, whose will was alleged to be forged. No evidence was given that the testator had been previously married, or left any other children, but one of the witnesses stated that he had heard a report that the deceased had left another son by a former wife :-Held, that there was no evidence of an intention to defraud any one, to justify a conviction. Reg. v. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319; 18 L. J., M. C. 36; S. C. nom. Reg. v. Tufts, 3 Cox, C. C. 160. A forged will had been sent to an attorney with some title-deeds ostensibly for the purpose of asking his advice upon them, but really that he might see the will and act |