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 privileged 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. 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. 66 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 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 undertakthe will of her father W.; that the will being left with the solicitor and discovered by him to be a forgery, he made an exact copy of it and then returned it to the prisoner. What the wife stated to the solicit-" or was afterwards communicated to the prisoner. The solicitor stated" that he was not then acting as the prisoner's attorney, that he made no charge for the interview, but that "ing, warrant, order, authority, or "request for the payment of money, "within the true intent and mean"ing of this act, in every such case "the person forging or altering such instrument or writing, or offering, uttering, disposing of, or putting off such instrument or writing, "knowing the same to be forged or "altered, may be indicted as an of"fender against this act, and pun "ished accordingly." (Former pro-" felony punishable under this act vision, 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66," shall on conviction be liable, at s. 4.) "the discretion of the court, to be 'imprisoned for any term not ex"ceeding two years, with or with"out hard labour, and with 4. Obtaining Property upon Forged Instruments. or By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 38," without solitary confinement; and whosoever, with intent to defraud, "shall demand, receive, or obtain, 66 66 66 every person who shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commis 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-"sion of any misdemeanor punisha"ed or paid to any person, or en"ble under this act shall be liable "deavor to receive or obtain, or to "to be proceeded against, indicted, 66 cause or procure to be delivered or "and punished as a principal offendpaid 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, testament, 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 66 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. Ĉ. C. 249. If several combine to forge Bank of England notes, and each executes by himself a distinct part of the forgery, but they are not together when the notes are completed, they are nevertheless 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. C. C. 166; L. & C. 173; 31 L. J., 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 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 407." 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 "sufficient to describe such instruof 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 216 66 66 "ter or thing whatsoever, or for using General Points.]—In an indictment, the words, "in manner and form following, that is to say," do not bind the party to recite the instrument verbatim, nor render a mere formal omission or mistake fatal. Rex v. May, 1 Dougl. 193. If any part of a true instrument is altered, the indictment may lay it to be a forgery of the whole instrument. Rex v. Dawson, 2 East, P. C. 978; 1 Str. 19. For alteration of a true inevery strument makes it a forgery of the whole. Ib. In an indictment for forgery, a description to a common intent of the person intended to be defrauded is sufficient. Rex v. Lovell, 1 Leach, C. C. 248; 2 East, P. C. 990. In an indictment for forging, the words, "purporting to be a banknote," mean that the instrument upon the face of it appears to be a bank-note; and the want of such appearance cannot be supplied by the representation of the party uttering it. Rex v. Jones, 1 Leach, C. C. 204; 2 East, P. C. 883; 1 Dougl. 302. An indictment for forging a bill of exchange directed to Ransom, Upon Bank Notes.]-Where an indictment on 41 Geo. 3, c. 57, s. 2, stated that the prisoner knowingly and without any authority from a certain corporate company called, &c., had in his custody a certain plate on which was engraved part of a promissory note, purporting to be the promissory note of the company; and it appeared that this company carried on the business of bankers, although incorporated for a totally different purpose:-Held, that the indictment was bad, having omitted to aver that the com"carried on the business of pany bankers." Rex v. Catapodi, R. & R. C. C. 65. A bank post-bill cannot, in an indictment for forging and uttering, be described as a bill of exchange; but it may be described as a bank bill of exchange. Rex v. Birkett, R. & R. C. C. 251. Upon Bills and Notes.]—A count | word "purport" means what appears on the face of the instrument, and the bill did not purport to be drawn on J. King. Rex v. Reading, 1 East, 180, n. In an indictment for forgery, a count which, since 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4. c. 66, charged, that the prisoner "did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, and did willingly act and assist in the false making, forging and counterfeiting" a bill of exchange, was good; as were counts charging that he did utter and publish as true, and did after dispose of and put away the bill. Rex v. Brewer, 6 C. & P. 363Park. An indictment for forging a bill of exchange, stating it to be signed by H. H. instead of purporting only to be so signed, the signature itself being a forgery, is bad. Rex v. Carter, 2 East, P. C. 985. An indictment on 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, charging that the prisoner feloniously altered a bill by making, forging and adding a cipher, was good, though the words of the statute were, "if any person shall falsely make or forge, counterfeit, &c." Rex v. Elsworth, 2 East. P. C. 986. In an indictment for forging a promissory note, the forged note might, under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, s. 3, be described as a certain forged promissory note, for the payment of 291.," without stating the date. Rex v. Burgiss, 7 C. & P. 490-Littledale. On Foreign Notes or Bills.]-An indictment for uttering a forged bill of exchange set out as follows: -" à 4 mois de date par cette lettre de change, à l'ordre de nousmême la somme de 500 livres sterling," and translated,-" at four months' date by this bill of exchange, to the order of ourselves, the sum of five hundred pounds sterling," is good. Rex v. Szudurskie, 1 M. C. C. 429. FISH. DIG.-16. Where a prisoner was convicted of forging an instrument (purporting to be a Prussian note) in a foreign language, but no count in the indictment contained an English translation of the note: judgment was ordered to be arrested. Rex v. Goldstein, 7 Moore, 1; 10 Price, 88; 3 B. & B. 201; R. & R. C. C. 473. Sewing to the parchment on which the indictment is written impressions of forged notes taken from engraved plates, is not a legal mode of setting out the notes in the indictment. Rex v. Harris, 7 C. & P. 429. Foreign notes were set out in an indictment in the original language, but the translation omitted some words which were in the margin or a border round the body of the note, and denoted the year in which the notes were issued, and it appeared that without these words the notes would not be capable of being circulated in the country to which they belonged :-Held, that the translation was imperfect. Ib. Describing a foreign note wholly in the English language is not suffi cient in an indictment for forgery, notwithstanding the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, s. 3; but this objection, provided the description was in the words of the statute creating the offence, could only be taken advantage of by demurrer, and is cured after verdict by 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 21. Ib. An indictment under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 19, for feloniously having in possession plates upon which were engraved a promissory note for payment of money of a foreign prince, inaccurately setting out the note in the foreign language and the translation, and with facsimiles of the note not engrossed in the indictment, but attached thereto on paper, was bad. Rex v. Warshaner, 1 M. C. C. 466. Counts under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, s. 3, stating the plates to have |