To constitute an uttering it probably would not be deemed necessary it should be uttered in payment. Uttering under the false pretence that it had been given in change by the person to whom it is uttered, in order to obtain from him a good note in lieu thereof, would probably be deemed an uttering; it has been so held in the case of counterfeit coin. (23) And under 45 G. 3. c. 89., offering, disposing of, or putting away, is described as the offence; uttering is not mentiened. The offence of disposing of and putting away may be complete, though the person to whom they were disposed of was an agent to detect utterers. (24) And though the prisoner was applied to by such agent for the bill or notes. (24) And though he might not have them when the agent first applied. (24) And though he disposed of them, not as genuine, but as forged. (24) Giving a confederate a forged bank note that he may utter it, is a disposing and putting away thereof. (25) (23) Rex v. Franks, Leach, 736. The prisoner sold Redit some apricots, and Redit paid him a good shilling, the prisoner put it into his mouth, and took from thence a counterfeit, and gave it to Redit as the shilling received from him, desiring him to change it, which he did: the prisoner practised the same trick with a second and third good shilling Redit gave him, on which Redit apprehended him. Conviction.-Objection that the indictment did not state that the shilling was uttered as and for a good one; the court thought an uttering not in payment within the statute, and the indictment right. (24) Rex v. Holden, Michaelmas, 1809. Indictment charged that prisoner disposed of and put away a forged bank note with intent to defraud the bank, he knowing it at the time to be forged. The evidence was, that Shaw and Whitehead were employed by the magistrates, with the approbation of the agents for the bank, to detect utterers that they applied to the prisoner, who procured the notes, and sold them, not as genuine, but as forged: it did not appear by any direct evidence that prisoner had the notes in his possession when first applied to, but he produced them at a subsequent meeting. It was urged, 1st, That the indictment was insufficient as not stating in what manner and to whom the notes were disposed of; and 2dly, That the disposal was insufficient, as the prisoner was solicited to commit the act by the bank's agent: but Chambre J. overruled the objections, and, on case for the twelve judges, they were unanimous that the objections had no weight. (25) Rex v. Palmer, Pasch. 1804. Palmer and Hudson were jointly Forging or uttering a bill or note for less than 20s., or a bill or note for (26) less than 57. which does not comply with the requisites of 17 G. 3. c. 30., or any other bill or note the legislature has declared void, is not within the statutes against forgery. But a bill or note for payment of so many pound, instead of pounds, is. (27) And so is a bill or note for payment of ten, twenty, thirty, &c. omitting "Pounds," if the figures with an £. affixed are put upon it to denote the amount. (28) And so is a bill on the commissioners of the navy, though it is not warranted by 35 G. 3. c. 94., if it has the requisites of a bill of exchange. (29) indicted, 1st, for uttering a forged bank note; and 2dly, for disposing and putting away: Hudson tendered it in payment, but Palmer was not with her the shop-keeper stopped it as suspicious, and Palmer came afterwards with Hudson, and claimed it as his, and said he would have either the note or change. The jury found Palmer alone guilty; and seven judges against four, held him well convicted on the second count. (26) Rex v. Moffat, Hil. 1787. Indictment for uttering a forged acceptance on a bill for 31. 3s. The bill did not specify the payee's place of abode, and had no subscribing witness, and was therefore void by 17 G. 3.; and on a case reserved the judges held this not a forgery within 7 G. 2. (27) See Rex v. Post, ante, p. 7. No. 17.73 (28) Rex v. Elliot, Michaelmas, 1777. The prisoner was found guilty of forging this note, I promise to pay to Mr. Jos. Crook, or bearer, on demand, the sum of fifty, London, the 20th day of June. For the governor and company of the Bank of England. Thos. Thompson. Fifty. Entered C. Blewerse." One count called it a note for payment of money only, describing it however as for payment of fifty pounds, and setting out the tenor; on the trial, the judge left it to the jury whether it was not to be considered as for 501.: the prisoner was found guilty, and on case, the judges were unanimous of opinion the conviction was right. (29) Rex v. Chisholme, Pasch. 1815. Prisoner was convicted of uttering a bill on the commissioners of the navy for 221. 6s. 9d. for pay due to J. S. as acting lieutenant of the Zealous. Acting lieutenants have no power under 35 G. 3. to draw, and it was admitted therefore that the indictment could not be maintained on 35 G. 3.; it was urged, that it could not be deemed a bill of exchange, because the commissioners of the navy were removeable, and the instrument, if genuine, would not have been drawn for the purpose of being accepted by the commissioners, but in order to obtain an assignment under 35 G. 3.; but the judges on case held, that it was, in form, a bill of exchange, and 35 G. 3. would not prevent its being so. But a bill or note is not within the statutes against forgery, unless it is for payment of money in specie; (30) And at all events. Therefore a bill or note to pay in cash or bank notes is not. (30) And it is questionable whether a bill or note payable to , or order, leaving a blank for the payee's name, is within the statutes. (31) Forging or uttering a note without a maker's name is not a capital offence. (31*) Forging or uttering a bill or note importing to be payable to A. B., or order, is a complete offence, though there is no endorsement upon it in A. B.'s name. (32) (30) See Rex v. Wilcox, ante, p. 6. (31) See Rex v. Randall, ante, p. 23. (31*) Rex v. Pateman, Pasch. 1821. Prisoner was convicted of uttering and publishing as true forged a promissory note. The note was as follows: "No. 16,209. Bedford Bank. I promise to pay the bearer forty pounds on demand, here, or at Sir Charles Price, Baronet, and Co.'s, bankers, London. Value received. Bed d, the 17th day of October, 1817. For Barnard Barnard and Green." It was objected that this was no note, because it had no maker's name, and imported to bind nobody: the point was saved for the consideration of the judges, and they held the objection good, and the conviction wrong. (32) Rex v. Birkett, Pasch. 1805. Indictment for forging and uttering a note payable to the prisoner's order: it appeared that he deposited it for his bill at an inn unendorsed, with a promise that he would pay the bill in a few days, saying, he wished not to discount it. Conviction.Doubts whether it should not have been left to the jury to consider, whether he did not really mean to pay his bill, and get back the note, and make no further use of it. The judges thought not, and the conviction stood. Rex v. Hough, Michaelmas, 1806. Indictment for uttering a forged bill importing to be drawn by Hastings, payable to Higgins, or order, with intent to defraud Green: the indictment did not state any endorsement in Higgins's name; the prisoner passed it to Green, and Green, at the time, inquired who Hastings and Higgins were, and the prisoner said he did not know much about Hastings, but he spoke of Higgins as a considerable manufacturer, and Green took the bill on the prisoner's representation of Higgins. Sutton B. doubted whether prisoner could properly be convicted, as Green took the bill on the credit of Higgins, and there was nothing in the indictment about his endorsement; but all the other judges thought the conviction right. Rex v. Wicks, Pasch. 1809. Prisoner uttered a forged bill importing to be payable to the order of the drawers, Rimmington and Co.; it had not their endorsement thereon, though it had one endorsement beside prisoner's. On conviction thereon a case was reserved, and on consideration, the judges (nine) held the conviction right; for the instrument Forging on unstamped paper a bill or note which requires a stamp is as much an offence as if it were on stamped paper. (33) And altering a bill which has once been paid, and which has been reissued without having a new stamp thereon, where such new stamp is requisite, is as much an offence as if the bill had never been paid, or as if it had had the additional stamp. (34) An intent to defraud the person who would have to pay the bill or note if it were genuine, is to be inferred. (35) And this inference ought to be drawn, though, from the manner of executing the forgery, or from that person's ordinary caution, it would not be likely to impose on him. (35) And though, from its being negotiable, it would be likely to defraud others, before it reached him. (35) And though the object was general, to defraud whoever might take the instrument, and the particular intention of defrauding the person who would have to pay it, if genuine, never entered into the prisoner's contemplation. (35) An intent to defraud a body politic or corporate is equally criminal with an intent to defraud an individual. (36) Where the forgery is by alteration, the indictment may charge that that the prisoner forged the altered instrument (37); or that he altered by forging; for altering is forging. (38) was a bill, and though it would not be available against the drawers without their endorsement, they might be compelled to endorse it, if they passed it away for good consideration. Lawrence J. for some time doubted, but at last seemed satisfied. (33) See Rex v. Hawkeswood, ante, p. 55. (34) See Rex v. Teague, ante, p. 383. (35) Rex v. Mazagora, Pasch. 1815. On indictment for disposing of forged bank notes, the intent was charged to be to defraud the bank : the jury stated that the intent was to defraud whoever might take the notes, but that the intention of defrauding the bank in particular did not enter into the prisoner's contemplation, and they found the prisoner guilty. On case, the judges thought it too clear for discussion; that the prisoner must be taken to have intended to defraud the bank, and that the conviction was right. (36) See 45 G. 3. c. 89. ante, p. 382. And discharging one endorsement, and inserting another, may be charged as altering the endorsement. (39) If the bill or note omit the word pounds in the body, but has an £. with figures prefixed to the amount in the margin, may be described as a bill or note for payment of that amount. (40) it The indictment must set out the bill or note in the very words: it is not sufficient to set out the substance. (41) (a) And if the bill or note contain figures, the indictment must follow it in that respect. (42) And if the bill or note be in a foreign language, a translation of it must be set out, that it may appear upon the record in a language the courts understand that it is what the law considers a bill or note. (43) (39) See Rex v. Birkitt, ante, p. 384. 391. (40) See Rex v. Eliot, ante, p. 390. (41) Rex v. Mason, Pasch. 1793. Indictment stated that the prisoners having in their possession a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by J. S. on J. N., thereby requiring J. N., two months after date, to pay A. B., or order, 917., and purporting to have been endorsed by A. B., together with a forged acceptance, written on the same bill, and purporting to have been written by the said J. N., feloniously did utter, &c. Thomson B. saved the question whether the indictment ought not to have set out the bill and acceptance in their words and figures; and the judges held it ought, and that for want thereof it was bad. Note. It would not otherwise appear on the record whether the bill was what the law considers a bill. [(a) But see Commonwealth v. Ross, 2 Mass. R. 373. An indictment for uttering a forged promissory note did not set forth the words of the note, nor the date, nor the time when it was payable. The attorneygeneral said, that the reason why the note was not more particularly described, was that the defendant when arrested swallowed the note, and thus put it out of the power of the government to give a more particular description. The indictment was held sufficient.] (42) See Rex v. Powell, post, 394. (43) Rex v. Goldstein, Michaelmas, 1821. The prisoner was convicted under 43 G. 3. c. 139. of forging a note purporting to be a note of the king of Prussia: the note was in the German language, and was set out verbatim: the indictment did not set out any English translation of it, and on that account an application was made to arrest the judgment: the point was saved for the consideration of the twelve judges; they directed it to be argued, and after argument, the opinion of the majority was, that a translation ought to have been set out upon the indictment, for it might be a question whether the instrument was within the statute; a court of error ought to have the means of deciding upon that point, to give them those means they ought to have the instrument before them in a language they understand, and unless they had a translation sanctioned by the jury which tried the indictment, they had no |