Page images
PDF
EPUB

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, Č. C. 1; 2 Den. C. C. 475.

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. 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.

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, 17s. 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. was treasurer of an unenrolled friendly society, and it was his duty to receive contributions from the members, and pay them into a bank in his own name for the benefit of the society. At meetings of the society he produced to the members a fictitious pass-book, purporting to vouch for the payment of monies by him into the bank. This book did not truly represent the state of the account between himself and the bank.

It being the duty of a railway station-master to pay B. for delivering and collecting parcels, he falsely told B. that the company had determined to pay him only for collecting, and not for delivering, and accordingly then continued to pay him only for collecting, but he continued to charge the company with payments purporting to be made to B. for delivering. In order to furnish a voucher to the company for these pretended payments, the station-master, after paying B.'s servHe also at 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.

[ocr errors]

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, knowing the same to be forged or alter"ed, 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 with"out hard labour, and with or with"out solitary confinement." (Similar to 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3.)

[ocr errors]

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 of fence, 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. C. 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

upon it. The will being produced | if he had found the security suffiat the trial by the attorney, the pris- cient he should have advanced the oner's counsel objected to the read-money. Notice was given to the ing of it on the ground that it was prisoner to produce that will, and a privileged communication, and upon its non-production the copy the objection was overruled at the taken by the solicitor was tendered time, and afterwards on a case re- and received:-Held, that the inserved. Reg. v. Hayward, 2 Cox, terview between the solicitor and C. C. 23. the prisoner's wife was not privileg ed as a confidential communication, and that the conversation which then took place, and the copy of the will, were both admissible. Reg. v. Farley, 2 Cox, C. C. 82; 2 C. & K. 313; 1 Den. C. C. 197.

Signing a wrong christian name to the person whose will a false instrument purports to be, is a forgery. Rex v. Fitzgerald, 1 Leach, C. C. 20; 2 East, P. C. 953.

66

On an indictment for forging a seaman's will, the muster-book of the Navy-Office is good evidence to (v) Instruments otherwise Designated. prove the identity of the supposed By 24 & 25 Vict c. 98 s. 39, testator. Rex v. Rhodes, 1 Leach," where by this or by any other act C. C. 24; S. P. Rex v. Fitzgerald, any person is or shall hereafter be 1 Leach, C. C. 20; 2 East, P. C."made liable to punishment for 953. "forging or altering, or for offering, Three were jointly charged with "uttering, disposing of, or putting procuring other persons to utter a "off, knowing the same to be forged forged will. The only evidence for " or altered, any instrument or writthe prosecution was of separate acts, "ing designated in such act by any at separate times and places, done" special name or description, and by each of the persons charged as "such instrument or writing, howaccessories. At the end of that ev- ever designated, shall be in law a idence one of them pleaded guilty:" will, testament, codicil, or testa-Held, that the other two might," mentary writing, or a deed, bond, notwithstanding, be convicted. Reg. or writing obligatory, or a bill of v. Barber, 1 C. & K. 442-Gurney,"exchange, or a promissory note Williams and Maule. "for the payment of money, or an

66

66

Upon the trial of an indictment" indorsement on or assignment of a for forging the will of one W., it "bill of exchange or promissory was proved that the prisoner's wife," note for the payment of money, or by his desire, took another will pur-" an acceptance of a bill of exchange, porting to be the will of W., also" or an undertaking, warrant, order, forged, to a solicitor, and asked him "authority, or request for the payto advance money on mortgage of "ment of money, or an indorsement the property which passed under" on or assignment of an undertak the will of her father W.; that the "ing, warrant, order, authority, or will being left with the solicitor and "request for the payment of money, discovered by him to be a forgery," within the true intent and meanhe made an exact copy of it and "ing of this act, in every such case then returned it to the prisoner."the person forging or altering such What the wife stated to the solicit-"instrument or writing, or offering, or was afterwards communicated" uttering, disposing of, or putting to the prisoner. The solicitor stated" off such instrument or writing, that he was not then acting as the "knowing the same to be forged or prisoner's attorney, that he made no altered, may be indicted as an ofcharge for the interview, but that "fender against this act, and pun

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 38," without solitary confinement; and "whosoever, with intent to defraud, every person who shall aid, abet, "shall demand, receive, or obtain, " counsel, or procure the commis

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

sion of any misdemeanor punisha"ble under this act shall be liable "to be proceeded against, indicted, "and punished as a principal offend

It is not sufficient to make a person a principal in uttering a forged note, that he came with the utterer to the town where it was uttered, went out with him from the inn at which they put up a little before he uttered it, and joined him again in the street, a short time after the uttering, and at some little distance from the place of uttering, and ran away when the utterer was apprehended. Rex v. Davis, R. & R. C. C. 113.

or cause or procure to be deliver-" "ed or paid to any person, or en"deavor to receive or obtain, or to cause or procure to be delivered or 66 paid to any person, any chattel," er." money, security for money, or other "property whatsoever, under, upon, "or by virtue of any forged or altered instrument whatsoever, knowing "the same to be forged or altered, or under, upon, or by virtue of any probate or letters of administration, knowing the will, testa"ment, codicil, or testamentary "writing on which such probate or "letters of administration shall "have been obtained to have been "forged or altered, or knowing "such probate or letters of adminis"tration to have been obtained by any false oath, affirmation, or "affidavit, shall be guilty of felony, "and being convicted thereof shall "be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servi"tude for any term not exceeding "fourteen years, and 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 "without solitary confinement." See Reg. v. Adams, 1 Den. C. C. 38.

66

[ocr errors]

5. Parties Indictable. Principals and Accessories.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 49, "in the "case of every felony punishable "under this act, every principal in "the second degree, and every ac66 cessory before the fact, shall be "punishable in the same manner as "the principal in the first degree is by this act punishable; and every accessory after the fact to any

If a wife, by the incitement of her husband, knowingly uttered in his absence a forged order and certificate for the reception of prizemoney, under 43 Geo. 3, c. 123, they might be indicted together, she as a principal on the statute, and he as an accessory, before the fact, at common law. Rex v. Morris, 2 Leach, C. C. 1096.

Persons privy to the uttering of a forged note by previous concert with the utterer, but who were not present at the time of uttering, or so near as to be able to afford any aid or assistance, are not principals, but accessories before the fact. Rex v. Soares, R. & R. C. C. 25 ; 2 East, P. C. 974.

If several plan the uttering of a forged order for payment of money, and it is uttered accordingly by one in the absence of the others, the actual utterer is alone the principal. Rex v. Badcock, R. & R. C. C. 249.

If several combine to forge Bank of England notes, and each executes

by himself a distinct part of the forg-| C. C. 166; L. & C. 173; 31 L. J., ery, but they are not together when M. C. 156; 8 Jur., N. S. 574; 10 the notes are completed, they are nev- W. R. 585; 6 L. T., N. S. 301. ertheless all guilty as principals. Rex v. Bingley, R. & R. C. C. 446.

If several make distinct parts of a forged instrument, each is a principal, though he does not know by whom the other parts are executed, and though it is finished by one alone in the absence of the others. Rex v. Kirkwood, 1 M. C. C. 304.

The makers of the paper and plate respectively, for the purpose of forging a note afterwards filled up by a third person, are principals in the forgery with that person, though each executed his part in the absence of the others, and without knowing by whom the other parts are executed. Rex v. Dade, 1 M. C. C. 307.

Persons not present, nor sufficiently near to give assistance at the time of uttering forged notes, are not principals, although they may be accessories before the fact. Rex v. Stewart, R. & R. C. C. 363.

The prisoner was the treasurer, and also a member of an unenrolled friendly society, and it was his duty to pay monies received into the society's bankers. The prisoner produced to the society a fictitious book, purporting to be the bank pass-book, containing entries purporting to vouch that he had paid certain monies into the bank, and that the bank acknowledged the receipt of them, which book did not truly represent the state of account. The prisoner having at various times drawn out monies which he had appropriated for his own purpose, the jury found the prisoner guilty of presenting a false account with intent to obtain credit for having paid the monies into the bank, with a view to obtain other monies from the society which he might fraudulently appropriate to his own use-Held, that the prisoner, though a member of the society, might properly be convicted of uttering a forged receipt, with intent, &c. 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.

6. Indictment.

Describing Instrument.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 42, "in any in"dictment for forging, altering, of "fering, uttering, disposing or put"ting off any instrument, it shall be

"sufficient to describe such instru

Other Parties.]—The prisoner was the paid secretary of an unenrolled friendly society, of which his wife was a member. He delivered to the society a book on which was endorsed "Savings Bank, Newstreet, Huddersfield," and in which was an entry, "1855, Oct. 30, received 401." It was proved that the entry was a forgery, and that the money had not been paid into the savings-bank. The jury having found that the prisoner was guilty of knowingly uttering with intent "ment by any name or designation to deceive the society, and that he "by which the same may be usually had, in fact, defrauded it, it was "known, or by the purport thereof, objected for the prisoner that being" without setting out any copy or the husband of a member he was a "fac-simile thereof, or otherwise part-owner, and could not be made" describing the same, or the value criminally liable for defrauding his "thereof." (14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, co-owners, and also that the docu- s. 5, and 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, s. 3, ment was not the subject of forgery: former enactments.) -Held, that both objections were And by s. 43," in any indictment untenable, and that the conviction" for engraving or making the whole was right. Reg. v. Moody, 9 Cox," or any part of any instrument, mat

« EelmineJätka »