Alleging that the prisoner forged a bill or note "as follows," or that he had a bill or note "as follows," implies, that what follows is in the very words of the bill or note, and makes it necessary to prove the bill or note verbatim. (44)

On an indictment for forging a bill or note with a false name ascribed to the prisoner's mark, the words ascribing the name to the mark, if written in the prisoner's presence, may be described as part of the bill or note. (45)

If the false signature contain an initial only for the christian name, it is not necessary to aver what christian name it means. (46)

The indictment ought not describe the bill or note as signed by the person whose name is supposed to have been forged; such an allegation is inconsistent with the charge of forgery, and makes the indictment bad. (47)

And an indictment must not describe a bill or note as having a purport different from what appears upon the face of the instrument. (48)

means of getting a translation upon which they could judicially rely; and the judgment was arrested.

(44) Rex v. Powell, Michaelmas, 1771. Indictment against prisoner for forging a stock receipt with intent to defraud, 1st, Taylor Barrow, and secondly, T. Sykes. The indictment stated that the prisoner forged a certain receipt as follows, viz. &c. The receipt, as set out, contained certain sums in figures, and it was signed T. Barrow. Three objections: 1st, That this was not equivalent to setting out the tenor; but the judges held it was, and that any variance would be fatal: 2dly, That the sums should not have been set out in figures; but the judges held the receipt must be pursued literatim, or it would be a variance; and thirdly, That it should have been averred that T. Barrow, as signed, meant Taylor Barrow; but the judges thought not, and prisoner was executed. (45) See Rex v. Dunn, ante, p. 386.

(46) See Rex v. Powell, supra, n. 44.

(47) Rex v. Carter, Hil. 1801. Indictment for forging and uttering a bill in Hutchinson's name, described it as signed by Hutchinson; and after conviction the judges held it bad upon the face of it, and that the prisoner might be indicted de novo.

(48) Rex v. Reading, Hil. 1794. East, 981. Upon a bill directed to John Ring, there was an acceptance in the name of John King. The indictment described the bill as purporting to be directed to John King by the name of John Ring; and after conviction for forging and uttering, the judges held this a repugnant and absurd description, for the bill could only purport to be what it appeared upon the face of it to be; and the judgment was arrested.

S. P. Rex v. Gilchrist, East, 982; and see Rex v. Jones, Dougl. 302. East, 883.

On an indictment for forging the endorsement of a payee, it is not necessary to shew by the drawer or maker who was intended as payee, if there is proof that the prisoner has himself admitted who it was. (49)

To support a charge of forgery by subscribing a fictitious name, there must be evidence on the part of the prosecution that that is not the party's real name. (50)

And if there is no evidence affirmatively what the real name is, there ought to be proof that it was assumed for the transaction in question; (50)

Or for a system of which that was part. (50)

But if there is proof affirmatively what the real name is, it is for the prisoner to shew a prior independent use of the assumed name. (50)

And in such case an absence of proof on the part of the prosecution by what name the prisoner has passed for several years, will not be material. (50)

On an indictment for uttering, proof that the prisoner had in his possession other bills or notes ejusdem generis is admissible, because if unexplained it tends to shew that he knew the bill or note in question was a forgery. (51)

And bills on the same house with a bill in question, importing to be drawn by persons not known at that house, will be deemed ejusdem generis with the bill in question. (51)

(49) Rex v. Downs, Michaelmas, 1789. Indictment for forging the payee's endorsement on a bill payable to John Sowerby, or order; when prisoner passed the bill, he said Sowerby was a cheesemonger at Liverpool, and John Sowerby of Liverpool, cheesemonger, was called; who proved that there was no other cheesemonger at Liverpool of that name but himself, and that the endorsement was not his; there were letters from the prisoner after his apprehension implying guilt generally in this transaction. It was urged, that the drawer should have been called to prove what John Sowerby he meant; but Wilson J. left the case as it was to the jury, who convicted; and on a case reserved the judges thought the evidence sufficient to go to the jury, and that the conviction was right.

(50) See Rex v. Peacock, ante, p. 387.

(51) Rex v. Hough, Michaelmas, 1806. Indictment for uttering a forged bill, purporting to be drawn by Hastings on Esdailes, and proof that no such person as Hastings kept cash at Esdailes': when the prisoner was apprehended, which was four months after the uttering, there were found upon him two other bills, importing to be drawn by

And proof that the prisoner had pointed out where bills or notes ejusdem generis were hid, is admissible, because if unexplained it raises a presumption that he had hid them. (52)

So proof that he had uttered other bills or notes ejusdem generis, is also admissible. (53)

But such bills or notes must be produced, and their being forgeries proved. (54)

Walters on Esdaile, and another, importing to be drawn by Newman on Esdaile; and evidence was given that no such person as Walters or Newman kept cash at Esdailes': Sutton B. allowed these bills to be read as evidence that prisoner knew the bill he uttered to be forged : and after conviction the judges thought it right.

(52) Rex v. Rowley, Pasch. 1806. Waring, a person employed by the solicitor to the bank, applied to the prisoner, who twice procured him forged bank notes; he applied a third time, prisoner went out, and after some time returned, and told Waring they were in an old shoe, in a particular lane; they went together, and prisoner threw a stone into a bush, and said, there they are: Waring found the shoe there, and the notes in it: the prisoner was indicted on 45 G. 3. c. 89. § 6. for having these notes in his possession, and Graham B. told the jury that if prisoner had the notes in his possession on their passage to the shoe, it was sufficient, and they convicted prisoner: the judges held the conviction right.

(53) Rex v. Wylie, 1 New Rep. 92. Upon an indictment for uttering a forged bank note, knowing, &c. the uttering was proved, and its being forged, and to prove the knowledge evidence was offered that the prisoner had passed other forged notes: this was objected to on the ground that it was evidence of other felonies, and the prisoner could not be prepared to resist it, but Lord Ellenborough, Heath J. and Thompson B. held it admissible, and the prisoner was found guilty.

Rex v. Ball, Michaelmas, 1807, P. C. 1 Campb. 324. P. C. On indictment for uttering a forged bank note, evidence was given that three months before prisoner had passed another note, forged in the same manner, namely, with a camel-hair pencil, by the same hand, and with the same materials, and that fifteen other notes of the same fabrication had been found filed at the bank with the prisoner's writing thereon: point saved whether the evidence was admissible: all the judges except Chambre J. thought it was, though its weight would depend on the number of notes issued, and the time, and the probability, from the prisoner's situation in life, of his taking them in businesss.

See Rex v. Hough, pp. 391, 395.

(54) Rex v. Millard, Pasch. 1813. The prisoner was tried for uttering a £5 bank note, and to prove the guilty knowledge it was proved that he had before uttered two £1 Leicester notes; that in about a fortnight one having been objected to as bad, he changed it, and that when under charge for the uttering in question, the other was brought to him with the word "forged" upon it, and he changed that, but neither of these bills were produced, nor had any notice been given for producing them; and on case, the judges held that this evidence should not have been admitted, without proper proof that these notes were

Proof that the prisoner took them back and changed them with the word "forged" written thereon, is not sufficient. (54)

And evidence may be given of the prisoner's conduct on such other utterings, and that he passed by different names. (55)

But quære, whether other evidence to impeach his conduct on those occasions is admissible? because he cannot be expected to be ready to meet such evidence.

Proof that the prisoner had uttered other forged bills or notes of a different kind is questionable.

On an indictment for forgery, the person whose name is forged, or upon whose genuine name a forgery is committed, is not a competent witness to prove the forgery if he has an interest in the destruction of what is supposed to be forged. (56)

And the reason perhaps is, that the indictment may be considered in some degree as a proceeding in rem, and a conviction would warrant a judicial cancellation of the forgery.

And he is not competent to prove any fact which has a tendency to make out the forgery. (56)

When the forgery is established by other evidence, whether he is competent on the part of the prosecution to any points unconnected with the forgery, is not settled. (56)

forged, and without deciding whether bills of a different description and denomination were admissible, (which Le Blanc J. thought they were); an application for a pardon was recommended.

(55) See Rex v. Millard, p. 396.

(56) Rex v. Crocker, 2 New Rep. 87. Indictment for forging a note. There was an endorsement on it in the prisoner's writing that a year's interest had been paid, and Le Blanc J. permitted the party whose name was forged to prove that he had never paid interest on this or any other note; but on case on this and another point, the prisoner was pardoned, and it was understood that a majority of the judges were of opinion that he ought not to have been admitted.

Note. Lord Ellenborough, Lawrence C. B. and Le Blanc J. thought him admissible, because it was sufficiently proved before that the note was not signed by him, and they thought him admissible to all points but that of the forgery: some of the other judges seemed to think that to points perfectly collateral he would have been admissible, but they considered the point to which he was called as contributing to prove the forgery. Le Blanc's MSS.

If he has no interest in the destruction of the forgery, he is a competent witness.

Thus if the holder of a forged note release the person in whose name it is made, such person will be a competent witness to prove the name forged. (57)

And he will be competent though the note was not payable to order or to bearer, so as to be negotiable, but simply to the prisoner, if the prisoner passed it to the owner for full value. (57)

So on an indictment against the payee of a bill for forging an acceptance, a release from the endorsee will make the supposed acceptor competent to prove the forgery. (58)

And so will an abandonment of his claim by the person who would be entitled to sue the supposed acceptor if the acceptance were genuine.

And it will have that effect though such endorsee advanced the payee only part of the amount of the bill, and would be liable to him, if the bill were genuine and paid, for the residue. (58)

And the endorsee in such case is a competent witness also. (59)

(57) Rex v. Akehurst, Leach, 136. Akehurst was indicted for forging a note payable to himself, but not payable to order; he paid it away ra part discharge of a debt, but did not endorse it; the holder gave the drawer a general release, and the drawer being offered as a witness to prove the forgery, Lord Mansfield, after argument, admitted him.

(58) Rex v. Mott, Hil. 1821. Indictment against payee of a bill for uttering it with the forged acceptance of Dover thereon; prisoner had endorsed it to Hood and Co. on having value to the amount of half the bill; Hood was examined as a witness, and so, on release from Hood, was Dover: case saved on the question whether Dover was competent without release from prisoner also, for if the acceptance were genuine, prisoner would have a claim against Dover for one half the bill; but the judges thought the release from Hood and Co. sufficient, because the endorsement vested the whole legal interest in them, and if the release destroyed any claim by prisoner on Dover, it gave a claim pro tanto against Hood and Co.: it was then urged that Hood was incompetent, for he had a direct interest in the prisoner's conviction; for if he was acquitted and could prove the acceptance genuine, he might sue Hood and Co. for giving the release: but a great majority of the judges held him competent.

(59) Rex v. Usher, Leach, 44. Usher forged the acceptance of a bill, making it payable at Sir Charles Asgill's in the name of Mr. Merry. Sir C. Asgill paid the bill, and charged it to Mr. Merry's account; but on being satisfied of the forgery, they gave him credit to the amount of