intention to be to defraud his majesty. There were four other counts framed upon the statute 35 G. 3. c. 94. (a) § 3. & 34., but the counsel for the prosecution had admitted that those counts could not be supported; and they contended that the instrument was a bill of exchange within the 2 G. 2. c. 25. (a) It was urged, on behalf of the prisoner, that it appeared clearly, that the instru ment was intended to be a bill under the 35 G. 3. c. 94. § 3.; that it was not drawn to be presented for acceptance or payment by the commissioners of the navy, as a bill of exchange, but in order to procure an assignment of it, according to the 15th section of that statute; that it was not a bill of exchange, because it was not drawn on any person bound to accept or pay it; and that the commissioners of the navy were removable at pleasure, and might be changed between the drawing and presenting of the bill. On the other hand, it was contended, that the intention with which this instrument was made was not material; and that it was not necessary, to constitute a bill of exchange for this purpose, that the parties on whom it was drawn should be liable to accept, or even be existing persons; and that it was enough if the instrument purported to be drawn on a person or persons to whom it might be presented. The learned judge respited sentence, in order that the question might be submitted to the judges, whether this instrument was properly described as a bill of exchange. The conviction was confirmed, and the prisoner afterwards received sentence of death, and was executed. Chisholm's case, Exeter Sp. Ass. 1815, cor. Dampier J., C. C. R. 297. 2 Russ.

457.

It is not necessary that a promissory note should be in itself negotiable, in order to make it the subject of an indictment for forgery, within the 2 G. 2. c. 25. (repealed). This point was decided by the judges in the following case:

Box's case, O. B. Apr. Sess. 1815, cor. Chambre J., C. C. R. 300. 6 Taunt. 325. 2 Russ. 460. Bayley on Bills, 29. Josiah Box was convicted on an indictment for forging a promissory note, which was as follows:

"On demand, we promise to pay Mesdames Sarah Waller
and Sarah Doubtfire, stewardesses for the time being of the
Provident Daughters Society, held at Mr. Pope's, the Hope,
Smithfield, or their successors in office, sixty-four pounds,
with five per cent. interest for the same; value received,
this 7th day of Feby. 1815.

£64.

66

For Felix Calvert & Co.
John Forster."

It was objected, in arrest of judgment, that this was not a promissory note, and the case was argued before the twelve judges. Their opinion was delivered by Le Blanc J. at the O. B. May sess., 1815, to the following effect: :- "An objection was taken in arrest of judgment, and argued before all the judges, that the instrument in question, such as it is stated in the indictment, was not a promissory note within the statute, so as to be the subject of an indictment for forging, or uttering it, knowing it to be forged. The objection to this instrument was founded on this circumstance,

(a) These statutes are now repealed.

A promissory note may be a valid note and the subject of forgery, though not negotiable, and though it add to the

names of the payees a description by a character to not by law entitled.

which they are

Charge of uttering a forged

bill not sup

ported by proof

of uttering a forged acceptance.

The uttering of the forged acceptance must be expressly averred.

Rex v. Watts. The prisoner having promised in payment for some goods an acceptance by a London banker, gave a bill addressed to, and purporting to be accepted by, Williams & Co., No. 3. Birchinlane, London; it was proved that Williams, Burgess, & Co.,

of No. 20.

Birchin lane,had

not accepted the

that it appears to be made payable to two ladies, describing them as stewardesses of a provident society, or their successors in office; and that, this society not being enrolled according to the statute, this note was not capable to enure to their successors, and was not negotiable. The judges are of opinion that this is, as stated on the indictment, a valid promissory note within the statute of G. 2. It is not necessary that such a note should be in itself negotiable; it is sufficient that it should be a note for the certain payment of a sum of money, whether negotiable or not. And though these ladies were not at the time legally stewardesses, yet it was a description by which they were known at the time; and though they could not legally have successors in office, yet, in case of their decease, their executors and administrators might sue, and they themselves, during their life, might recover on it. Therefore, it is an instrument capable of being the subject of forgery, and there is no ground to arrest the judgment; and the judges are all of opinion that the conviction is right." The prisoner was executed.

In forgery, it appeared that the acceptance written across a bill of exchange was forged, and the prisoner was proved to have knowingly uttered it. It was held, on case reserved, that counts charging the uttering a forged bill were not proved by proof of uttering a forged acceptance; for, by 1 W. 4. c. 66. § 33., uttering a forged acceptance is made a distinct offence. Other counts charged, that prisoner having in his possession a certain bill (setting it out without the acceptance), with a certain forged acceptance on the said bill (setting out the acceptance), uttered, "then and there knowing the said last-mentioned acceptance to be forged," the said last-mentioned bill of exchange, with intent to defraud, &c. It was objected, that it was not expressly stated, that the prisoner uttered the forged acceptance, but only that he had in his possession a bill with the acceptance on it, and that he uttered the bill knowing the acceptance to be forged; and non constat but that he might have expunged by some means the forged acceptance before he uttered the bill. The judges held unanimously that the counts were bad, for the reasons assigned. H. T. 1834, Rex v. Samuel Rodwell, cor. Gurney B., Stafford Sum. Ass. 1833. MS.

Rex v. Thomas Watts. In the Exchequer Chamber, H. 2 & 3 G. 4. 3 Brod. & Bing. 197. S. C. C. C. R. 436. 2 Russ. 325. The prisoner was tried before Best J., at the last assizes for Devon. The first count of the indictment was for forging, at East Stonehouse, on 6th April, 1821, an acceptance by Messrs. Williams & Co. to a certain bill of exchange, as follows; viz.

No. 117. £200.

March 28th, Swansea Bank, 1821.

Two Months after date pay to Mr. John Tipper, or order,

Two hundred Pounds,

To Messrs. Williams & Co.

3.

Bankers, Birchin-lane,
London.

for value received,

Hy. Williams & Co.

with intent to defraud one Thomas Baylis, John Routledge, and Jonathan Ramsay. The second count was for uttering and publishing, as true, the said forged acceptance on the said bill of exchange, knowing the same to be forged, with a like intent.

He was acquitted on the first, and convicted on the second

count.

It was proved, that, in April last, the prisoner purchased of the prosecutors wheat to the amount of 240l. At the time he made the purchase, he agreed to pay by the acceptance of a London banker. Before the wheat was delivered to him, he produced to the prosecutors a bill in these words and figures:

No. 117. £200.

March 28th,
Swansea Bank, 1821.

Rex v. Watts.

bill, and that no

other bankers of the name of

Williams & Co. were known in London; but no evidence was adduced to

show that Williams & Co.

Two Months after date pay to Mr. John Tipper, or order, of No.3. Birch

He was asked how he proposed to pay the remainder of the money, and said, he would draw on the same bankers for the balance. He then drew the following bill in the prosecutor's counting-house:

£40.

South Tawton, April 6th, 1821. Two Months after date, pay to our order Forty Pounds, value received, as advised by

Accepted,

Williams & Co.

Thomas Watts,

for P. Watts & Co.

He said he would send this bill to London, to get it accepted. It was afterwards sent back to the prosecutors, accepted, as it now appears. Whilst he was drawing the bill, one of the prosecutors asked him if Williams & Co., the acceptors, were Williams, Burgess, & Co. The prisoner said the acceptors were Williams, Burgess, & Co. Prosecutor said it was improbable there should be two firms of the same name in the same street, and prisoner answered it was improbable. The figure 3, which stands between the words Bankers and Birchin-lane, in the 2007. bill, was not then on the bill. The witnesses did not observe whether the small figure 3. in the corner, was on the bill at this time. It appeared to a witness acquainted with bills not to be a part of the address, but was like a figure that the holders of bills sometimes put on them before they leave them for acceptance. But the person who presented this bill had not observed whether it was on the bill when he presented it for payment, or not. A person to whom he presented the bill at the house, No. 3. Birchin-lane, took this bill behind a desk, and had an opportunity of writing on it one or both these figures. But the person who presented it did not observe, when he received the bill back, whether either of these figures were then on it. There are London bankers at No. 20. Birchin-lane, of the names of Williams, Burgess, & Co., who usually accept bills in the form of Williams & Co. This bill was not accepted by that firm. No other bankers of the names of Williams & Co. were known to carry on business in Birchin

in-lane, had not accepted the

bill : Held, that there

was no forgery proved against the prisoner, by ten judges against one; Bayley J. ab

sente.

lane, nor were there any other London bankers under that firm. The words "Williams & Co." were on a brass plate, on the door of No. 3. There was no evidence to shew by whom these bills were accepted.

The prisoner proved that three bills, in the following form, had been paid at No. 3. Birchin-lane, viz.:

No. 345. £30.

South Tawton, March 5th, 1821.

Two months after date pay to our order Thirty Pounds,

Uttering a bill

addressed to a man by a particular descrip

tion and addition, with an

acceptance thereon by a man of the same

name, but not

of that description or addition, will not be capital if there be no man answering that description or addition, and no false name be assumed.

Swansea.

Best J. left it to the jury to say, whether the acceptance of the 2007. bill was the acceptance of any London bankers.

The question for the opinion of the judges was, whether the prisoner was properly convicted? There was also a further question, (viz.) Whether, considering the manner in which the bill is stated in the indictment, it was necessary for the prosecutors to prove that the 3. in the corner was on the bill when it was tendered in payment?- Williams C. F. for the prisoner. No evidence has been adduced to shew that the acceptance which the prisoner is charged with having forged, was not the acceptance of those persons whose acceptance it purports to be; namely, the acceptance of Williams & Co., of No. 3. Birchin-lane; if the acceptance was written by them, the circumstance of their not being bankers would not render the prisoner guilty of a forgery. The jury, indeed, have found that he did not forge the acceptance, and even wilful misrepresentation made after uttering a bill will not render that a forgery which was not so at the time the bill was drawn. Rex v. Webb (a). Walker's case, 2 Russ. 1420. Hevey's case, 2 East's P. C. 856.

(a) Rex v. Webb, in the Exch. Chamb. Nov. 13. 1819. C. C. R. 405. 3 Brod. & Bing. 228. S. C. The prisoner was tried before Best J. at the last Wiltshire Assizes. The indictment charged him with feloniously forging and counterfeiting a certain bill of exchange, as follows:

£154 9s. Od.

Wilton, Wills, Dec. 21st, 1818.

Two Months after date, pay to my order one hundred and fifty-four pounds

nine shillings, for value received and balance of account.

To Mr. Thos. Bowden,

Baize Manufacturer,

Romford, Essex.

No. 40. Castle Street,
Payable, when due, at

Holborn, London.

Accepted, Thos. Bowden.

John Webb.

Secondly, there is a variance in the setting out of the bill on record, no evidence having shewn that the bill, when uttered, contained the figure 3 stated on the record. Thirdly, it ought not, for the reason before stated, to have been left to the jury, whether or no this was an acceptance by London bankers. - For the crown, the cases of Mead v. Young (4 T. R. 28.), and Parkes' and Brown's case (2 Leach, 775. 2 East's P. C. 963.), were cited as in point. No judgment was given, but the prisoner received a free pardon. Eleven judges were present, of whom ten were of opinion that this case did not amount to forgery. They gave no opinion upon the point as to the variance, their judgment on the first point rendering that unnecessary. Bayley J. was absent at chambers. 3 Brod. & Bing. 201.

W. Testick was indicted (Bodmin Sum. Ass. 1774, 2 East's Receipts. P. C. 925. 2 Russ. 362.) for uttering and publishing as true a forged receipt for money, with the name S. W., &c., for 1l. 4s. which was as follows; viz.

With intention to defraud Wadham Lock, William Hughes, and Henry Saunders,
against the statute, &c. The second count was for feloniously uttering and pub-
lishing the same as true, with the like intention. The third count was for forging
an acceptance (setting out the acceptance as above), with the like intention. And
the fourth count was for uttering and publishing the said acceptance, with the like
intention. It was proved, on the part of the prosecution, that no Thomas Bowden
(the person appearing on the bill to be the acceptor) lived at No. 40. Castle Street,
Holborn; and that no such person ever resided or carried on business, or was ever
heard of at Romford, in Esser; and that there is no baize manufactory in Rom-
ford. On the part of the prisoner, it was proved by a witness, who stated him-
self to have been a partner in business with Thomas Bowden (the acceptor), that
the acceptance was the hand-writing of Thomas Bowden. This witness, on his
cross-examination, said, that Bowden never carried on the business of a baize
manufacturer at Romford, and that the prisoner had known Bowden many years.
Another witness said he knew Bowden, and that the acceptance was his hand-
writing. This second witness said, that he kept the house, No. 40. Castle Street,
Holborn (the place where the bill is made payable), and that he was surprised at
Bowden's accepting the bill made payable at No. 40. Castle Street, Holborn, as he
did not reside there, and had no authority from the witness to make any bill pay-
able at that house. Best J. desired the jury, first, to consider whether there was
any such person as Thomas Bowden, and if there was, whether the acceptance
was his.
The learned judge told them, if there was no such person, or the ac-
ceptance was not his, and the prisoner, at the time he offered the bill to the pro-
secutors, knew either that there was no such person, or, if there was, that he had
not accepted it, they should find him guilty, and further directed the jury, if they
thought the acceptance was Bowden's writing, to find whether he ever lived at
Romford, or carried on the business of a baize manufacturer there; and told them
that, if they thought Bowden never lived at Romford, or carried on any manu-
factory there, and that the prisoner, who appeared from the evidence to be ac-
quainted with him, knew that, on addressing the bill to Bowden, as baize manu-
facturer, at Romford, he was giving him a false description, for the fraudulent
purpose of giving credit to the bill, they should find him guilty; and that the
judge would submit the propriety of the conviction under these circumstances to
the judges. The jury found, that there was no such person as Thomas Bowden.
Best J. thought that there was such a person, and that the acceptance was his
hand-writing, and wished therefore for the opinion of the judges, whether, as-
suming that the acceptance was the hand-writing of Bowden, the prisoner, by the
giving, on the face of the bill, Bowden a false description, and uttering the bill
after it was accepted by Bowden with this false description, with intent to defraud,
brought himself within any of the counts of the indictment against him. Eleven
of the judges (Best J. being at chambers) were of opinion, that this case did not
fall within the decision of Parkes' and Brown's case (a), 2 East's P. C. 963.
S. C. 2 Leach, 775.; but that, though a gross fraud, it was no forgery.

(a) See antè, p. 273.