note for the payment of money; which said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the bank note,] with intention to defraud the said governor and company of the Bank of England, (he the said J. S., at the time he so offered, diposed of, and put away the said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note, as aforesaid, then and there well knowing the same to be false, forged, and counterfeited): against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity. Add another set of counts, charging the forging, &c. to have been committed with intent to defraud the person to whom the note was uttered or passed. In the counts for offering and disposing of the note, it is not necessary to allege to whom it was so offered, &c. R. v. Holden, 2 Taunt. 334.

Felony, death. 45 G. 3. c. 89. s. 2, 1. The second section here referred to, extends to bank notes, bank bills of exchange, dividend warrants, bonds or obligations under the common seal of the bank, and to indorsements thereon.

Evidence.

Prove the forgery, as directed ante, p. 190, &c. Under the counts for uttering, you may give in evidence that the defendant offered or tendered the note in payment, or that he actually passed it, or otherwise disposed of it, to another person. Where it appeared that the defendant sold a forged note to an agent employed by the bank to procure it from him, the judges held this to be within the act, although it was objected that the prisoner had been solicited to commit the act proved against him, by the bank themselves, by means of their agents. R. v. Holden, 2 Taunt. 334. So, where A. gave B. a forged note to pass for him, and upon B.'s tendering it in payment of some goods, it was stopped: the majority of the judges held that A., by giving the note to B., was guilty of disposing of, and putting away the note, within the meaning of the act. R. v. Palmer & al. 1 New Rep. 96. As to evidence that the prisoner knew the note to be forged, at the time he disposed of it, and as to the other evidence necessary to support these counts, see ante, p. 194, 195.

Indictment for having a forged bank note in his possession.

Middlesex to wit: The jurors for our lord the King, upon their oath present, that J. S., late of the parish of B., in the county of M. labourer, on the third day of May, in the third year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the fourth, in the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, feloniously,

knowingly, and wittingly, and without lawful excuse, had in his possession and custody divers forged and counterfeited bank notes, to wit, one forged and counterfeited bank note, which said forged and counterfeited bank note is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the bank note in words and figures, correctly]; and one other forged and counterfeited bank note, which said last mentioned forged and counterfeited bank note is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the other bank note;] he the said J. S. then and there well knowing the said several bank notes, and each and every of them, to be forged and counterfeited: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity. Some precedents add a count as to one of the notes set out in the first count; but this does not seem to be necessary.

Felony, 14 years transportation. 45 G. 3. c. 89. s. 6. This section extends to bank nutes, bank bills of exchange, bank post bills, blank bank notes, blank bank bills of exchange, and blank bank post bills.

Evidence.

Prove that the defendant had in his possession the bank notes set out in the indictment, or one of them; and prove the notes to be forgeries, as directed ante, p. 192, &c. The act says "in his possession or custody, or in his dwelling house, outhouse, lodgings, or apartments." If the notes were found in the defendant's dwelling house, outhouse, lodgings, or apartments, it may be prudent perhaps so to state the fact in the indictment, or, at least, in one of the counts. As to the defendant's knowledge that the notes found upon him were bad, it can be proved by circumstantial evidence only. See ante, p. 195.

Care must be taken that the note or notes produced in evidence, correspond with the statement of them in the indictment, in the same manner as in forgery. See ante, p. 192.

Indictment for forging a receipt.

Commencement, as in the last precedent.] county aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, and did wittingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting a certain acquittance and receipt for money, which said false, forged, and counterfeited acquittance and receipt for money is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the receipt, in words and figures, correctly. See ante, p.189.] with intention to defraud J. N.: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of

our lord the King, his crown and dignity. (2d Count.) And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said J. S. afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, feloniously did utter and publish as true, a certain other false, forged, and counterfeited acquittance and receipt for money, which said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited acquittance and receipt for money is as follows: [here set out the receipt,] with intention to defraud the said J. N., (he the said J. S., at the time he so uttered and published the said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited acquittance and receipt, as aforesaid, then and there well knowing the same to be false, forged, and counterfeited): against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity. Add a count, that the defendant did "offer, dispose of, and put away" a certain other acquittance and receipt for money, and similar in every other respect to the last. See ante, p. 195.

Felony, death. 45 G. 3. c. 89. s. 1. The words in the statute are acquittance or receipt, either for money or goods." Where the receipt is for goods, the indictment may be framed as above, only substituting the words "receipt for goods," for the words "acquittance and receipt for money.'

Evidence.

Prove the forgery and uttering,&c., as directed ante, p.190,&c. It has been holden that a receipt for bank notes, is not an acquittance or receipt for money or goods, within the meaning of the act. R. v. Harrison, 1 Leach, 180, 2 East, P. C. 926. So, a scrip receipt, in which a blank was left for the subscriber's name, was holden not to be a receipt within this statute; R. v. Lyon, 2 Leach, 597. and see Id. 808, &c.; but otherwise, if the blank had been filled up.

Indictment for forging a banker's draft, or other order for the payment of money, or delivery of goods.

66

The same as the last precedent, only substituting the words, warrant and order for payment of money," or " warrant and order for delivery of goods," for the words "acquittance and receipt for money."

Felony, death. 45 G. 3. c. 89. s. 1.

Evidence.

Prove the forgery and uttering, &c., as directed ante, p.190,&c. It only remains here to shew what warrants and orders are within the meaning of the act.

A draft upon a banker, is a warrant and order for the payment of money, within the statute; R. v. Willoughby, 2 East, P. C. 944; so is even a bill of exchange. R. v. Shepherd, 1 Leach, 226. So an order to pay "all my prize money due to me for my services on board his majesty's ship Leander," without specifying any particular sum, was holden to be within the act. R. v. Mc. Intosh, 2 East, P. C. 942. So, an order "to deliver my work to bearer" (and which was explained in evidence to mean an order to Goldsmith's hall to deliver certain articles of plate a silversmith had sent there to be marked), was holden to be within the act, although it did not specify any particular articles. R. v. Jones, 1 Leach, 53.

The order must purport to be signed by some person who might command the payment of the money, or the delivery of the goods, and to be directed to a person who was compellable to obey it. See R. v. Clinch. 2 East, P. C. 938. And therefore an order to a tradesman to let the bearer have certain goods, and which it was optional with the tradesman to obey or not, was holden not to be within the act. R. v. Williams, 1 Leach, 114. R. v. Mitchell, Fost. 119. and see R. v. Ellor, 1 Leach, 323. In such a case, we have seen, (ante, p. 162, 161) the defendant should be indicted on stat. 33 H. 8. c. 1. s. 1. So, a forged magistrate's order for a reward for apprehending a vagrant, which appeared upon the face of it to be defective, as not being under seal, or directed to the constable, &c., was holden not to be within the statute; for without these requisites, it was nothing more than the order of a mere individual, which the treasurer was not bound to obey. R. v. Rushworth, 2 Russel, 1643. But a forged draft on a banker, in a fictitious name, or in the name of a person who never kept cash with the banker, is a warrant or order within the meaning of the act; R. v. Lockett, 1 Leach, 94. R. v. Abraham, 2 East, P. C. 941; for it imports, upon the face of it, to be an order by a person having authority to make it. Where, on the contrary, a man obtains goods upon his own draft on a banker, with whom he does not keep cash, we have seen (ante, p. 160.) that the proper mode of proceeding against him criminally, is by indictment on stat. 30 G. 2. c. 24. s. 1, for the fraud.

And lastly, the order must purport to be directed to the person having possession of the money or goods; and therefore where an order to deliver to the bearer 8lb. of silk, did not appear to be directed to any person, it was holden by the judges not to be within the act. R. v. Clinch. 2 East, P. C. 938.

Indictment, at common law, for forging a fieri facias.

Middlesex, to wit: The jurors for our lord the King, upon their oath present, that J. S., late of the parish of B. in the county of M., labourer, on the third day of May, in the third

year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the fourth, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, and wickedly contriving to injure, oppress, impoverish, and defraud one J. N., then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and falsely did forge and counterfeit a certain writing on parchment, purporting to be a writ of our lord the King of fieri facias, and to have issued out of the court of our said lord the King of the Bench at Westminster, in the county aforesaid; which said false, forged, and counterfeited writing is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the fieri facias verbatim;] with intent the said J. N. to injure, oppress, impoverish, and defraud: to the great damage of the said J. N., to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity. This count appears to be sufficient, without stating that the writ was actually executed, or the prosecutor's goods seized under it. However, it may be as well to add a second count, similar to the above, to the end of the statement of the fi. fa., and then continued thus: with intent the said J. N. to injure, oppress, impoverish, and defraud. And the said J. S. afterwards, and before the said last mentioned pretended writ purported to be returnable, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited writing, knowingly, falsely, and deceitfully, as a true writ of our said lord the king of fieri facias, did cause to be delivered to the then sheriff of Middlesex, for execution to be made thereof; and afterwards, and before the said last mentioned pretended writ purported to be returnable, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did cause to be seized and taken divers goods and chattels of the said J. N. to a large amount, by pretence of the said pretended writ: to the great damage of the said J. N., to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity. (3d Count.) And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S. afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully did utter and publish, as a true writ of our lord the King of fieri facias, a certain other other false, forged, and counterfeited writing on parchment, purporting to be a writ of our lord the King of fieri facias, and to have issued out of the court of our lord the King of the Bench at Westminster, in the county aforesaid, which said false, forged, and counterfeited writing is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the writ verbatim,] with intent the said J. N. to injure, oppress, impoverish, and defraud, (he the said J. S., at the time he so uttered and published the said last mentioned false, forged, and counterfeited writing, as aforesaid, then and there well knowing