And altering the place where a bill or note is payable, if for purpose of fraud, may be a capital forgery. (9)

Sect. 2. A bill or note is, primâ facie, to be considered as issued as soon as it is passed away by the drawer or maker, (10) or accepted by the drawee; (11)

Not before. (12)

well Street;" and on the ground that this was a material alteration and vacated the acceptance, verdict for defendant : A motion was made for a new trial, but the court thought the verdict right, for this alteration would lead to a presentment at B.'s, not at defendant's, and the bill might be treated as dishonoured, and defendant be arrested thereon, without any presentment where he would expect it, and a rule was refused.

(9) Rex v. Treble, 2 Taunt. 328. Kellaway issued ten pound notes payable at Fordingbridge, or at Wilkinson and Co.'s London: these notes were re-issuable, several of them were paid in town, and stolen on their way back to Fordingbridge: Wilkinson and Co. failed, and the prisoner, who had got one of these notes, covered the names of Wilkinson and Co. with a small piece of paper containing the names of Ramsbottom and Co. and re-issued the note: he was indicted for forgery and convicted, and on argument before the twelve judges this was held a forgery, for substituting a solvent house as one of the places of payment instead of an insolvent: one varied the credit of the note, and though Kellaway by the real note answered for no payment in London, but at Wilkinson and Co.'s, this alteration made him answerable for it at Ramsbottom's.

(10) See Walton v. Hastings, ante, p. 91. Outhwaite v. Luntly, ante, p. 91. Knill v. Williams, ante p. 91.

(11) See Tidmarsh v. Grover, and Cowie v. Halsall, ante, p. 92. (12) Kennerly v. Nash, 1 Stark. 452. Maules drew a bill upon Nash at three months, payable to his (Maule's) order, and

If two persons exchange acceptances, each bill is to be considered as issued, and any alteration afterwards will make new stamps necessary. (13)

But a bill is not to be considered as issued, so as to make a new stamp necessary, until it is in the hands of some one who is entitled to make a claim thereon; (14)

Though it is accepted and indorsed; (14)

And an alteration thereon without the knowledge of acceptor or indorser, though it will entitle them to consider their acceptance or indorsement vacated if they do not assent thereto, will be binding upon them if they assent. (14)

sent it to Nash for acceptance: Nash sent it back to Maule, and desired him to let the bill be at four months instead of three: Maule assented, and the bill was altered accordingly. On question whether this made a new stamp necessary, Lord Ellenborough held it did not, and the plaintiff had a verdict.

(13) Cardwell v. Martin, 9 East. Rep. 190. On the 3d of June, 1807, the defendant and Giles and Co. exchanged acceptances; on the 23d, before either of the bills had been passed away, they altered the dates to the 23d; the bills were payable at a certain period after date. Lord Ellenborough thought a new stamp necessary, and nonsuited the plaintiff, with liberty to move to set aside the nonsuit: on motion accordingly, the whole court thought that the exchange of acceptances was a negotiation of each bill, and that the subsequent alteration rendered a new stamp necessary. Rule refused.

N. Each bill was payable to the drawer's order, and the plaintiff was a bonâ fide indorsee.

(14) Downes v. Richardson, B. R. Easter Term, 1822. Upon an issue from chancery, on the question whether Thompson, as acceptor of a bill of exchange, was indebted thereon to Downes, an indorsee; it appeared in evidence that the bill was drawn by

Sect. 3.-If the date of a bill appear upon production to have been altered, and such alteration is in the hand-writing of the acceptor, the holder must prove that such alteration was made before the bill was parted with by the drawer. (15)

But proof that it was in the drawer's hands after it was accepted, will be primâ facie evidence for that purpose. (15)

Raines to his own order upon Thompson, accepted by Thompson and indorsed by Raines and Lachlan; that its date was the 6th March; that Raines, Thompson and Lachlan were in the habit of putting their names for each other upon bills, and that Thompson and Lachlan put their names upon this bill to enable Raines to pass it: Raines put it into the hands of an agent, and he could not pass it till 10th April, when he paid it for value to Howell, who passed it for value to plaintiff. Before it was paid to Howell, the date was altered to the 16th of March: Thompson did not know of this alteration till after the bill was paid to Howell, but as soon as he knew of it he assented to it. It was urged for defendant, that this alteration made a new stamp necessary; but upon a case reserved, the court thought otherwise; for though the bill had names upon it, so as to give it the semblance of an available bill before it was paid to Howell, it was not in fact an available bill till that payment; no person could have made a claim upon it, and if not, it was not to be considered as issued till that period, and then the alteration was in time; and though Thompson would not have been bound by the bill in its altered state had he not assented to the alteration but might have insisted that the alteration cancelled his acceptance, his subsequent assent bound him, and revived and continued his acceptance.

(15) Johnson v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Stark. 313. In action by indorsee against acceptor on bill payable to the drawer's order, the bill on production appeared to have been dated originally 29th December, 1816, but the date was altered

If the bill is put into an agent's hands to pay away, and it is left in doubt whether the date was altered before he paid it away or afterwards, it will not be sufficient. (16)

to 29th January, 1817, and the alteration, which was immediately above the acceptance, was proved to be in defendant's handwriting. Abbot J. intimated, that he must have proof that the alteration was made before the drawer indorsed away the bill, for otherwise a new stamp would have been necessary. Proof was then given that the bill was in the drawer's hands after defendant had accepted it, and that was considered primâ facie proof that it had not been previously negotiated.

(16) In Downes v. Richardson, ante p. 94. it was at first left in doubt when the date was altered, whether before or after the payment to Howell, and then the court inclined against the plaintiff; it was afterwards ascertained that the alteration was before that payment.

CAP. V.

SECT. 1. Of the Transfer of Bills or Notes.
How-by Delivery, p. 98.

Indorsement, p. 99.

2. By whom, p. 106.

3. When.

blank, p. 100.

full, p. 100.

restrictive, p. 102.

of the whole Sum, p. 105.

After due, p. 118.

after Acceptance refused, p. 122.

in case of checks, p. 124.

after actual payment, p. 125.

before filling up, p. 127.

Of Bills in Sets, p. 129.

Obligation of Indorsement, p. 129.

Or Delivery, p. 129.

BILLS or notes payable to order, or to bearer, or containing any words to make them assignable,

H