On an indictment for forgery at common law, it is not necessary to prove that the party charged was in custody before the time of the trial, in order to give jurisdiction under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 24. Reg. v. Smythies, T. & M. 190; 1 Den. C. C. 498; 19 L. J., M. C. 31; 4 Cox, C. C. 94; 13 Jur. 1034. A verdict, in such case, of guilty of forging, but there is no evidence of its having been done within the jurisdiction of the court, amounts to a conviction. Ib. Where a prisoner was tried for forgery in the county where he was in custody, under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 24, the forgery might be alleged to have been committed in that county, and there need not be any averment that the prisoner was in custody there. Rex v. James, 7 C. & P. 553-Patteson. 9. Election of Forgeries. The bank of England having preferred several indictments for uttering and having in possession, in respect of the same note, and having elected to proceed on the indictment for having in possession:-Held, that although facts sufficient to support the capital charge were made out in proof, an acquittal for the minor offence ought not to be directed, because the whole of the minor offence was proved, and it did not merge in the larger. Anon., R. & R. C. C. 378. The bank might elect to proceed on an indictment for a lesser of fence, although an indictment had been found for a capital charge in respect of forging the same note. Ib. On a count for uttering several forged receipts, the court will not put the prosecutor to his election on which receipt to proceed, if they be all uttered at the same time. Rex v. Thomas, 2 East, P. C. 934. 10. Uttering. What is.]-Putting a letter into the Manchester post-office, containing a forged instrument, is an uttering in the county of Lancaster, and the post-mark is evidence of such an uttering. Perkin's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 150-Park. Uttering in England a forged note, payable in Ireland only, was within the forgery acts prior to 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66. Rex v. Kirkwood, 1 M. C. C. 311. The uttering a bill with a genuine indorsement, under pretence of being the indorser, will not subject the party to an indictment as for uttering a forged instrument, as it is only a misdemeanor. Rex v. Hevey, R. & R. C. C. 407, n.; 2 East, P. C. 556, 856; 1 Leach, C. C. 229. Forging a bill payable to the prisoner's own order, and uttering it without an indorsement as a security for a debt, is a complete offence, if done with a fraudulent intent, the bill having been issued to obtain credit, though as a pledge only. Rex v. Birkett, R. & R. Č. C. 86. On an indictment for forging a scrip receipt, it must appear that the receipt was signed subsequently to the passing of the statute on which the indictment is founded; but though signed before, yet, if it was uttered after the passing of the act, the prisoner may be convicted on the count for uttering it, knowing it to be forged. Rex v. Reeves, 2 Leach, C. C. 808, 814. 224 be put off, might have been con- Shewing a man an instrument, forged bank-note to another, who the uttering of which would be knowingly utters it accordingly, the criminal, though with an intent of prisoner, who delivered such note to raising a false idea in him of the party's substance, is not an uttering. Rex v. Shukard, R. & R. C. C. 200. Nor will the leaving it afterwards, sealed up, with the person to whom it was shewn under cover, that he may take charge of it, as being too valuable to be carried about, be an uttering. Ib. The offence of disposing and putting away forged bank-notes is complete, although the person to whom they are disposed was an agent for the bank to detect utterers, and applied to the prisoner to purchase forged notes, and had them delivered to him as forged notes, for the purpose of disposing of them. Rex v. Holden, R. & R. C. C. 154; 2 Leach, C. C. 1019; 2 Taunt. 334. A bill was addressed to Messrs. Williams & Co., bankers, Birchin Lane, London, and there might, at that time, have been a 3 on the lower left-hand corner of the bill; the prisoner was asked at the time whether the acceptors were Williams, Birch & Co., and his answer imported that they were. Wiliams, Birch & Co. lived at No. 20, Birchin Lane, and it was not their acceptance. There were no other known bankers in London using the style of Williams & Co.: but at No. 3, Birchin Lane, the name of "Williams & Co." was on the door; and some bills addressed to Messrs. Williams & Co., bankers, Swansea, had been accepted, payable at No. 3, and had been paid there. There was no evidence who lived at No. 3, but another bill of the same tenor as that in question, drawn by the prisoner, had been accepted there: -Held, that on these facts he was improperly convicted of uttering a forged acceptance, knowing it to be forged. Rex v. Watts, R. & R. C. C. 436; 3 B. & B. 197; 6 Moore, Uttering a forged bill of exchange, purporting to be payable to the drawer's order, with intent to defraud, is a complete offence, although there is no indorsement upon it importing to be the drawer's. Rex v. Wicks, R. & R. C. C. 149. If a person presents a bill of exchange for payment, with a forged indorsement upon it of a receipt by the payee, and the clerk to whom he presents it objects to a variance between the spelling of the payee's name in the bill and the indorsewhich the person alters ment, upon which the the indorsement into a receipt by himself for the payee: semble, that the act of presenting the bill to the clerk previously to his objection is sufficient to constitute the offence of uttering the forged indorsement. Rex v. Arscott, 6 Č. & P. 408. If an engraving of a forged note is given to a party as a pattern or as a specimen of skill, the party giving it not intending that the particular note should be put in circulation, it is not an uttering. Rex.v. Harris, 7 C. & P. 428Littledale. Where a prisoner, charged with uttering a forged note to A., knowing it to be forged, gave forged notes to a boy who was ignorant of that fact, and directed him to pay away the note mentioned in the indictment at A.'s for the purchase of goods, and the boy did so, and brought back the goods and the change to the prisoner:-Held, that it was an uttering by the prisoner to A. Rex v. Giles, Car. C. L. 191; 1 M. C. C. 166. If A. exhibits a forged receipt to B., a person with whom he is claim- | jury must select some one particuing credit for it, this is an uttering, lar time after all three had become although A. refuses to part with the possession of the paper out of . his hand. Reg. v. Radford, 1 C. & K. 707; 1 Den. C. C. 59. On a trial for uttering a forged note scienter, the admissibility of evidence of other utterings is not affected by Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Den. C. C. 264. Reg. v. Green, 3 C. & K. 209-Cresswell. The prisoner placed a forged receipt for poor-rates in the hands of the prosecutor for inspection only, in order, by representing himself as a person who had paid his rates, fraudulently to induce the prosecutor to advance money to a third person-Held, that this was an uttering. Reg. v. Ion, 2 Den. C. C. 475; 16 Jur., 746; 6 Cox, C. C. 1. Upon proceedings before justices against a pawnbroker, under 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 14, he delivering to them, through the hands of his attorney, a false and fabricated duplicate of goods that had been pledged with him, is an uttering by the pawnbroker. Reg. v. Fitchie, Dears. & B. C. C. 175; 3 Jur., N. S. 419; 26 L. J., M. C. 90; 7 Cox, C. C. 257. Conditional.]-A conditional uttering of a forged instrument is as much a crime as any other uttering. Where a person gave a forged acceptance, knowing it to be so, to the manager of a banking company where he kept an account, saying, that he hoped this bill would satisfy the bank as a security for the debt he owed, and the manager replied that that would depend on the result of inquiries respecting the acceptance: -Held, a sufficient uttering. Reg. v. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 582-Patteson. Joint Uttering.]-Where three were jointly indicted for feloniously using plates, containing impressions of forged notes:-Held, that the FISH. DIG.-17. connected, and must be satisfied, in order to convict them, that at such time they were all either present together at one act of using, or assisted in such one act, as by two using, and one watching at the door to prevent the others being disturbed, or the like; and that it was not sufficient to shew that the parties were general dealers in forged notes, and that at different times they had singly used the plates, and were individually in possession of forged notes taken from them. Rex v. Harris, 7 C. & P. 416. V. was indicted for uttering forged post-office money orders. H. and S. were joined in the indictment, and convicted. They had gone to the shop where V. uttered the orders, remaining outside in a cab so situated that they could not see or be seen by the people in the shop. They had previously accompanied V. to another shop, where he failed to get change for the orders, and they assisted him in taking away the goods obtained at the second shop: -Held, that though they were not in the cab for the purpose of taking part in aiding or assisting in the actual act of uttering, they were rightly convicted. Reg. v. Vanderstein, 16 Ir. C. L. R. 574; 10 Cox, C. C. 177 (Ir. C. C. R.). 11. Evidence. Production of Instrument.]-If, on an indictment for forgery being presented to the grand jury, it appears that the forged instrument cannot be produced, either from its being in the hands of the prisoner, or from any other sufficient cause, the grand jury may receive secondary evidence of its contents. Rex v. Hunter, 3 C. & P. 591-Park. On an indictment for forgery being presented to the grand jury, a witness declined to produce certain deeds before them :-Held, that, if the deeds formed a part of the evi dence of the witness's title to his own estate, he was not compellable to produce them, but that, if they did not, the grand jury might compel their production. Ib. bill may be given in evidence, although it is not stamped. Rex v. Hawkeswood, 1 Leach, C. C. 257; 2 East, P. C. 955; 2 T. R. 606, n.; S. P., Rex v. Morton, 2 East, P. C. 955 ; 1 Leach, C. C. 239, n.; S. P., 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83, s. 27. To implicate or connect.]—In case of forging and uttering a forged bill, a letter written by the prisoner to a third person, saying that such person's name is on another bill, and desiring him not to say that that bill is a forgery, is receivable in evidence to shew guilty knowledge; but the jury ought not to consider it as evidence that the other bill is forged, unless such bill is produced, and the forgery of it proved in the usual way. Rex v. Forbes, 7 C. & P. 224. On an indictment for uttering a forged deed, it appeared that the deed alleged to have been forged was produced in evidence by the prisoner's attorney on the trial of an ejectment, in which the prisoner was lessor of the plaintiff; and that, after the trial, it was returned to the prisoner's attorney :-Held, that, if the prisoner did not produce the deed, he having had notice to produce it, secondary evidence might be given of its contents, without calling his attorney to prove what he had done with the deed. If, as secondary evidence of the contents of the deed, the draft is given in evidence, and in the draft words are abbreviated, which, in the setting out of the deed in the indictment, are put in words at length, it will be for the jury to say whether they think that the words abbrevi---Held, that the deposition of B. ated in the draft were inserted at length in the deed itself. Rex v. Hunter,4 C. & P. 128-Vaughan. If a forged deed is in the possession of a prisoner, who is indicted for forging it, the prosecutor is not entitled to give secondary evidence of its contents, unless he has, a reasonable time before the commencement of the assizes, given the prisoner notice to produce it; and a notice given to the prisoner during the assizes is too late; but if the prisoner has said that he has destroyed the deed, no notice to produce it will be necessary. Rex v. Haworth, 4 C. &. P. 254-Parke. Quære, whether a forged document intrusted by the prisoner to an attorney, as an attorney, can be produced on the trial for the forgery? Reg. v. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319; 18 L. J., M. C. 36. Stamping.]-On an indictment for forging a bill of exchange the A. was charged with a forgery, and B. was examined on oath before the magistrate as a witness against A; after this B. was himself charged with a different forgery: was evidence against him on his trial for the forgery, notwithstanding it was taken on oath. Rex v. Haworth, 4 C. & P. 254-Parke. On an indictment for uttering a forged bill of exchange, the judge will hear evidence of all the facts which form parts of one continued transaction relating to the uttering of the bill, and will not press the prosecutor to elect what particular fact he means to rely upon as the uttering, till the case for the prosecution is closed. Rex v. Hart, 7 C. & P. 652-Littledale. On the trial of a indictment for forgery of the acceptance of a bill of exchange, evidence of what the prisoner said respecting other bills of exchange which are not in evidence, is not admissible. Reg. v. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 586-Patteson. But see Reg. v. Brown, 2 F. & F. 559-Crompton. The examination of a person taken on oath as a witness before Com missioners of Bankruptcy, is admis- Wylie, 1 N. R. 92; S. C. nom. sible against him on a charge of Rex v. Whiley, 2 Leach, C. C. 983; forgery, he having been cautioned S. P., Rex v. Tattersall, 1 N. R. 93, and allowed to elect what questions n. he would answer. Reg. v. Wheater, So proof that the prisoner had 2 Lewin, C. C. 157; 2 M. C. C. 45. in his possession other bills or notes On an indictment for forging a of the same kind is admissible. bank-note, a letter purporting to Rex v. Hough, R. & R. C. C. 120. come from the prisoner's brother, So proof that he pointed out and left by the postman pursuant where such others were hidden. to its direction, at the prisoner's Rex v. Rowley, Bayl. Bills, 448. lodgings, after he was apprehended and during his confinement, but never actually in his custody, cannot be read in evidence against him on his trial. Rex v. Huet, 2 Leach, C. C. 820. Where a prisoner utters an instrument with a forged indorsement or other writing, and a short time previously the instrument is shewn to have been in his possession without such indorsement, there is some evidence of forgery, although there is no proof of the indorsement being in the prisoner's handwriting, or if it is even shewn that he is unable to write. Reg. v. James, 4 Cox, C. C. 90-Erle. On an indictment for forgery, it appeared that the prisoner, on the discovery of the forgery, being suspected, was asked to write his name, for the purpose of comparison, and did so :-Held, that this signature was not admissible on the part of the prosecution for that purpose. Reg. v. Aldridge, 3 F. & F. 781-Wightman. If the possession of other forged instruments is offered in evidence to prove a guilty knowledge, there must be regular evidence that such instruments were forged; proof that the prisoner returned the money on such an instrument, and received the instrument back, is not sufficient without producing the instrument or duly accounting for its non-production. Rex v. Millard, R. & R. C. C. 245. Upon an indictment for uttering a forged note, evidence is admissible of the prisoner's having, at a prior time, uttered another forged note of the same manufacture; and also that other notes of the same fabrication had been found on the files of the bank, with his handwriting on the back of them, in order to shew his knowledge of the note mentioned in the indictment being a forgery. Rex v. Ball, R. & R. C. Č. 132; 1 Camp. 324; 2 Leach, C. C. 987, n. In order to shew a guilty knowledge, on an indictment for uttering forged bank-notes, evidence of another uttering, subsequently to the one charged, is not admissible, un Uttering a forged order for the payment of money under a false representation is evidence of knowing it to be forged. Rex v. Shep-less the latter uttering was in some pard, 1 Leach, C. C. 226; 2 East, P. C. 967; R. & R. C. C. 169. way connected with the principal case, or it can be shewn that the notes were of the same manufacOf Guilty Knowledge.]-Upon an ture; for only previous or contemindictment for disposing of and put- poraneous acts can shew quo aniting away a forged bank-note know-mo a thing is done. Rex v. Taverning it to be forged, the prosecutor er, Car. L. 195. may give evidence of other forged notes having been uttered by the prisoner, in order to prove his knowledge of the forgery. Rea v. If a second uttering is made the subject of a distinct indictment, it cannot be given in evidence to shew a guilty knowledge in a former ut |
