Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. 259, 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. Č. 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

Wylie, 1 N. R. 92; S. C. nom.

So proof that the prisoner had in his possession other bills or notes of the same kind is admissible. Rex v. Hough, R. & R. C. C. 120.

missioners of Bankruptcy, is admissible 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, 2 Lewin, C. C. 157; 2 M. C. C. 45. On an indictment for forging a bank-note, a letter purporting to come from the prisoner's brother, and left by the postman pursuant to its direction, at the prisoner's 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.

So proof that he pointed out where such others were hidden. Rex v. Rowley, Bayl. Bills, 448.

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. Rex 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

[ocr errors]

66

66

tering. Rex v. Smith, 2 C. & P." tody or possession, or shall know633-Vaughan. "ingly and wilfully have any such On an indictment for uttering "matter in the actual custody or forged Polish notes, conversations possession of any other person, or with the prisoners respecting the "shall knowingly and wilfully forgery and circulation of forged "have any such matter in any Austrian notes are admissible to "dwelling-house or other building, prove the scienter. Rex v. Harris," lodging, apartment, field or other 7 C. & P. 429--Williams. place, open or inclosed, whether On an indictment for engraving" belonging to or occupied by himor uttering notes of a foreign prince, "self or not, and whether such evidence of a recent engraving or "matter shall be so had for his uttering notes of another foreign own use or for the use or benefit prince is admissible, in proof of a" of another, every such person guilty knowledge. Rex v. Balls, 1" shall be deemed and taken to M. C. C. 470. "have such matter in his custody In a prosecution for forging and" or possession within the meaning uttering a receipt, knowing it to be "of this act." forged, it was proposed to give in evidence other acts of forgery by the prisoner, against the same prosecutor, as evidence of guilty knowledge, on the count for uttering. It was objected that they could only be given in evidence if they were forgeries, and there was no evidence of that without first asking the jury to find them so, which was not the issue they had to try -Held, that the whole evidence must be confined to the document they were proceeding upon, without at all trenching upon the rules as to uttering in other cases. Reg. v. Moore, 1 F. & F. 73-Byles and Martin.

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

Where, on an indictment on 45 Geo. 3, c. 89, s. 6, for knowingly and wittingly having in his possession forged Bank of England notes, it appeared that the prisoner, being suspected of having such in his possession, was requested by A. to sell him some, which he said he would do, and A. accordingly paid him. for them; the prisoner then went out as he said to fetch the notes, but on his return said, "he had put them in an old shoe in a particular place," which he described; A. then went to look for the notes, and the prisoner followed him, whilst A. was looking for them, the prisoner threw a stone into the place, and said there they are; A., on looking there, found the notes in an old shoe-Held, that the prisoner had a sufficient possession within the meaning of the statute. Rex v. Rowley, R. & R. C. C. 110.

but

A. took a bank-note in the course of his business, which he paid to B.; the note was afterwards stopped at the bank as a forged note, and was brought by an inspector to A., who immediately paid to B. the amount of the note, and refused to give it up to the inspector, insisting on his right to retain it, in order to recover the amount from the person from whom he had received it. The inspector, in the absence of

all circumstances of suspicion, is er, who has examined the paper not justified in charging A. before with a mirror, and traced the pena magistrate with feloniously hav-cil marks, is admissible on the part ing the note in his possession, know- of the prosecution. Reg. v. Wil ing it to be forged, for the purpose liams, 8 C. & P. 434-Parke. of compelling him to give up the note. By possession under the 45 Geo. 3, c. 89, was meant the original possession of a note acquired in an illegal mode, and not a subsequent possession, like the above, where the original possession was legal. Brooks v. Warwick, 2 Stark. 389Ellenborough.

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

On an indictment for uttering a forged cheque in the name of J. W., on Messrs. C. G. & Co., who were army agents and bankers, evidence by a clerk in the former department that he did not know any customer named J. W., and that he had been told by the other clerks that there was not any such customer in the banking department, is sufficient on the part of the prosecution to call upon the prisoner to shew that there was in fact such a person as J. W. having an account with Messrs. C. G. & Co., and in the absence of such proof, is sufficient by itself for the jury. Rex v. Brannan, 6 C. & P. 326-Park, Patteson and Gurney.

13. Power to seize Forged Instruments and Implements.

(24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 46.)

14. Punishment. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, ss. 47, 48.)

15. Costs of Prosecution. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 54, "the court before which any indict"able misdemeanor against this act "shall be prosecuted or tried may "allow the cost of the prosecution "in the same manner as in cases of felony; and every order for the

66

66

payment of such costs shall be "made out, and the sum of money "mentioned therein paid and repaid, upon the same terms and in the same manner in all respects as in cases of felony."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

XVIII. GOVERNMENT STORES. See the Naval and Victualling Stores Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 64, which repeals sections 1, 2, 4, &

5 of 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 41; 9 Geo. | er.
1, c. 8, ss. 3, 4 & 5; 17 Geo. 2, c.
40, s. 10; 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 89;
54 Geo. 3, c. 60; and 55 Geo. 3, c.
127, on which the following cases were
decided.

One became possessed, on the death of her husband, of canvass stores, which had been purchased by him in his lifetime, at a public sale, and had been many years made up into household furniture, but no evidence was given of any certificate of such sale being lawful, as required by 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 41, or of any excuse allowed by the act; yet the possession being, by act of law, without fraud:-Held, not within the penalty of the statute. Anon.; 2 East, P. C. 765.

He was indicted under 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 41, s. 2, for having naval stores in his custody, possession and keeping, and convicted:-Held, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Reg. v. Sunley, Bell, C. C. 145; 5 Jur., N. S. 551; 7 W. R. 418; 33 L. T. 154; 8 Cox, C. C. 179.

A. was indicted, under 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 41, s. 2, for having been found in possession of naval stores marked with the broad arrow. It was proved that he delivered to the captain of a coasting vessel a cask containing copper bolts, a portion of which was marked with the broad arrow. The cask was seized by the police before the vessel sailed. In answer to questions put to the An indictment under 39 & 40 jury, they found that A., was in the Geo. 3, c. 89, alleged that A., on possession of the copper bolts; that the 19th day of May, 1842, not they had not sufficient evidence bebeing a contractor, had in his pos- fore them to shew that he knew session naval stores:-Held, that that the copper, or any part of it, the date given applied to the alle- was marked with the broad arrow; gation that A. was not a contractor, and that he had reasonable means as well as to the allegation that he of knowing that it was so marked: had possession of the stores, and -Held, that upon this finding of therefore that it was sufficiently the jury he was entitled to an acaverred that he was not a contract- quittal, as it must be taken that he or at the time of such possession. did not know that the copper was Silversides v. Reg. (in error), 2 G. & marked. Reg. v. Sleep, L. & C. D. 617; 3 Q. B. 406; 6 Jur. 805.44; 8 Cox, C. C. 472; 7 Jur., N. Bags marked M. were forwarded | S. 979; 30 L. J., M. C. 170; 9 W. from Portsmouth to London by rail- R. 709; 4 L. T., N. S. 525. way, and were deposited in the goods department of the railway company in London. The prisoner, a marine store dealer in Portsmouth, wrote and telegraphed to G., an officer of the company, to deliver the bags to E. The bags, on being opened, were found to contain naval stores marked with the broad arrow. The bags had been delivered at the Portsmouth station by two women, but there was no evidence to connect them with the prisoner. Bags marked E. had previously been forwarded by the company to their goods department in London, and delivered to E. in accordance with directions received from the prison

Held, that the conviction was also wrong, upon the ground that the copper was not found in his possession. Ib.

An indictment framed under 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 41, and 55 Geo. 3, c. 127, and charging that the prisoners received, and had in their posses sion, certain government stores, will not be supported by evidence which merely shews that they were deal ing with the cases in which the stores were placed-in the absence of evidence to shew that they knew the government mark was on the stores. Reg. v. O'Brien, 15 L. T., N. S. 419--Smith.

The bare possession of marked

« EelmineJätka »