Copyright
William Oldnall Russell.

A treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) online

. (page 67 of 178)
Online LibraryWilliam Oldnall RussellA treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) → online text (page 67 of 178)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


held that it was evidence to go to the jury. It was not certainly the
most satisfactory evidence ; nor was it the evidence that was usually
given in such cases; but it was evidence, and it was for the jury to say
whether it was sufficient, in the absence of any evidence on the part of
the prisoner, who best knew the state of the matter. (??) So where the
prisoner was indicted for forging and uttering a check for 10/. drawn
in the name of John Weston, on Messrs. Cox & Greenwood, and a clerk
from their establishment stated that they were bankers and army agents,
and that there was not any person of the name of John Weston having
any account there, and that the check was presented to him and pay-
ment refused on that ground, and added that he was a clerk in the army
agent department ; and that he could not swear he knew the names of
all the customers in the house, but he did not know any one of the name
of Weston in his department, and that he had inquired of the other
clerks, and was informed by them that there was no such person in the
banking department ; it was objected that the evidence was not suffi-
cient, as it was partly hearsay : but it was held that it was j^?-<'»i(t/«c-te
evidence, and was sufficient to call upon the prisoner to show that in
fact there was a J. Weston having an account at Messrs. Cox & Grecn-
wood.(?H)

Proof that the prisoner, on uttering a note, represented the maker as Proof thnt
living at a particular place and in a particular line of business, with evi- e,!*reure""
dence that it is not that person's note, is sufficient to prove it a forgery, scutud tho

(k) Downes's case, Lancaster Sum. Ass. 1780, ilicb. T. IVSO. 2 East, P. C. c. 19, s. 05, iv
997.

(/) Re.x V. Backl er,» 5 C. & P. 118, Piirkc, J., and Gaselee, J.

(//) Rex V. Kiug,'' 5 C. & P. 123, Park, J. A. J., Parke, J., and BoUand, 1?. The prisoner
was acquitted.

(m) Rex V. Brannan,= 6 C. & P. 320, Park, .1. A. J., Patteson, J., and Gurney, B.

I j Proof that the prisoner, on uttering a note, represented the maker as livin<j: at a i)ar-
ticular jihice and in a particular line of business, with evidence that it is not that person's
note, is suHicient to prove it a forgery ; especially if the prisoner be the payee of the note.
And proof that there is another person of that name, in a diftercnt line of business, will not
make it necessary for the prosecutor to show it was not that person's note. Ry. & Jlood. C
0. 255, Rex v. Hampton.}

' Eng. Com Law Reps. xxiv. 23G. »» lb. xxiv. 230. " lb. xxv. 422.



402 OP Forgery. [book iv.

maker of a if thc prisoner bo the payee of the note; and proof that there is another

note as liv



at a



person of that name in a different line of business will not make it
[>iu-ticular nccessary to prove that it was not that person's note. The prisoner
place, and ^^.^g indicted for forging and uttering a promissory note purporting to
ticular lino bc drawn by W. Holland, payable to the prisoner or his order. The
of business, prisoner told the person, to whom he uttered thc note, that it was drawn

With ovi- 1- X / /

dcnco that by W. Holland, who kept the Bull's Head at Tipton, who was a respect-
it is not able man. The note was dishonoured ; and the prisoner, on being in-
son's note, fonucd by the prosecutor that Holland said he knew nothing of the
note, said, " Does not he ? I will let him sec that." Holland proved
that he kept the Bull's Head at Tipton ; that the note was not made by
him, or by his order, or with his knowledge, and there was no other
publican of his name at Tipton ; but there was a gentleman of the same
name living there on his means, who for distinction was called gentle-
man Holland. Upon this evidence, it was objected, 1st, that there was
no evidence of thc note being forged ; the description of the maker
applied as exactly to the second as to the first W. Holland. 2d. No
evidence that at the time of the uttering the prisoner knew Holland of
the Bull's Head not to be the maker of the note. 3d. Supposing him
to have had such knowledge, verbal misrepresentation did not amount
to forgery. 4th. Supposing such misrepresentation could amount to
forgery, that was not the offence of which he was convicted, ()i) but of
uttering the note knowing it to bc forged, which implied a previous act
*403 of forgery. If, therefore, the forgery was not consummated until *the
representation was made, the offence of uttering, which must be subse-
quent, was never committed. The jury found the prisoner guilty of
uttering the note knowing it to be forged, and said they were satisfied
that when the prisoner represented it to be the note of Holland of the
Bull's Head, he knew it was not his note. And, upon a case reserved,
the judges held that, as the prisoner had stated that W. Holland of the
Bull's Head was the maker, and from being payee of the note he must
have known the particulars, it was sufficient for the prosecutor to show
it was not the note of that W. Holland ; and it lay on the prisoner to
prove it the genuine note of another W. Holland, if it were so.(o)
Offho It has been already observed that the publication of the forged in-

knowledo-e strumcnt, with knowledge of the fact, is made a substantive offence, by
where the most of the statutes which relate to forgery ;(p) and in cases of this
w\th know ^^^"^^ ^^^ knowledge of the fact, or as it is frequently termed the guilfy
iodgo oi Vac knowledge, becomes a material part of the evidence. "f" The subject has
fact IS made gQjj^Q under consideration in several modern cases.

"tive oflFenco. Two prisoners were indicted for disposing of and putting away a
VVylie's forged bank note for one pound knoxoing the same to he forged. It was
rase. Upon proved that they put off the forged note stated in the indictment at the
an indict- ^^iov) of one John Hind ; and then, in order to show that thev knew the

incnt for i /> i • i i

uttering a notc to be forged, evidence was o0"ered to prove that they had before
{'!'^r^ passed other forged notes to other persons. This evidence was objected
knowing it to by the counsel for thc prisoners, who urged that no evidence could be

(rtl This seems a mistake, the objection being taken before verdict.

(o) Rex V. Hampton, R. & M. C. C. R. 255. {p) Ante, p. 319.

f [Upon the trial of an indictment for passing counterfeit bank notes, proof that prisoner
had, about the same time, passed another note of the same kind, which was thought to be a
counterfeit, and which he took back, though this note be not produced at the trial is
admissible evidence to prove the scienter. JUariin v. The Commonwealth, 2 Leigh, 745.]



CHAP. XXXII. § v.] OF THE EVIDENCE. 403

given of any transaction not stated in the indictment, since the prisoners ^ l>e forg-
could not be prepared to defend iheraselves against a charge of which ^^'j^^^ ^„y
they had no notice. But the learned judges, bcfurc whom the prisoners be given of
were tried, overruled the objection. Lurd EUcnborough, C J., said, °||'^^jg"J'°"
" Certainly no different rule of law can prevail with respect to prosccu- having
tions by tlie bank from those conducted by any other person. This point ''|j'^^ "*^'^'""
however, is not new ; it was reserved in the case of The King v. Tat- j,ria«ner, in
tersall, which was tried at Lancaster, in 1801, by Mr. J. Chambre, and '""'l''" t"
received the collective voices of the judges. The question was, whether i;„^„.lmjge
in giving evidence to prove an allegation that the party uttered a bank of the for-
note, knowing it to be forged, the prosecutor might give the conduct of ^"^'
the prisoner in evidence, to show his knowledge of the forgery? The
learned judge reserved the question, whether the prisoner had not fur-
nished pregnant evidence, and whether the jury, from his conduct tn
one occasion, might not infer his knowledge on another ? The opinion
of the judges was, that the jury were at liberty to make such inference.
The prisoner does not come unprepared ; it is alleged that he uttered a
note knowing it to be forged. Are we then to exclude all evidence, but
what is furnished by this particular transaction, since without other evi-
dence it is impossible to ascertain whether the party uttered the note
with knowledge, or under circumstances which showed the uttering to
be venial ? I remember a case in which a person came to Manchester
with a large parcel of forged notes ; his whole demeanor afforded preg-
nant evidence of the mind and purpose for which he came; and *a *40-i
question was made, whether that evidence should be received, for it was
said that it would be trying the prisoner for other utterings. But if
crimes do so intermix, the court must go through the detail. I remember
a case where a man committed three burglaries in one night; he took a
shirt at one place, and left it at another, and they were all so connected
that the court went through the history of the three different burglaries.
The more detached in point of time the previous utterings are, the less
relation they will bear to that stated in the indictment. But in such case
t!ie only question would be, whether the evidence would be sufficient to
warrant the inference of knowledge from such particular transactions ?
It would not make the evidence inadmissible. Such evidence may come
out from these circumstances as to leave no doubt that the prisoners
must have known what sort of paper they were passing."(2)

So in a case where the prisoner was indicted for forging and for ut- Oilier for-
tering with guilty knowledge a bill of exchange, purporting to be drawn [['^"^^^q
upon a certain banking house, it was holden that other forged bills upon bank.
the same house, which were found upon the prisoner at the time of his
apprehension, were admissible as evidence of guilty knowledge. (/•)"{■

In a subsequent case the prisoner was also indicted for disposing of Ball's case,
and putting away a forged bank note, which purported to be' a promis- ^P'^°*

(q) Rex v.'Wylie and another, cor. Lord ElicnborouKli, C. J., Heath, J., and Thonifon, B.,
0. B. 1804. 1 New R. 92. S. C. by the name of Whiley and Ilaincs, 2 Leach. 983. And sec
ante, vol. I, p. 80, 81, as to the guilty knowledge in uttering counterfeit money; and I'hil.
on Evid. (3d edit.) 142, 143.

(r) Rex I'. Hough, 1806, Russ. & Ry. 120.

■j- [Spencer v. The Commonwealth, 2 Leigh, 751. State v. Houston, 1 Bailey, 300; nor does
it render such evidence inadmis.sihlc, that the defendant had been formerly acquitted
vipon an indictment for uttering the last mentioned note, knowing it to be forged, but the
objection onlv goes to weaken its elfect with tlic iurv. Ibid. I'jV/c State v. I'clti/, Harper,
59.]



404 OF FORGERY. [BOOK IV.

similar in- gory note of the governor and company of the Bank of England, hnow-
ev^idenoe'is *''i7 ^^^^ same to he forged. Clear proof was adduced, that the note in
admissible question was forged, and that it had been uttered by the prisoner at East
°^>r^baviu°" -''^'^^™' *^^ *^^ '^"^^^ of Junc, 1807, SO that the only remaining question
some time" was, as to his <jidltij knoiolcihjc of the forgery. To establisli this, evi-
beforo ut- ^^.^^^qq ^as admitted, that on the 20th of March preceding, he had passed
other forg- oif a 10/. Bank of England note likewise forged, and of the same manu-
ed note of facture, and that there had been paid into the Bank of England various
mauufac- forged notcs, dated between Dec. 1806, and March 1807, all of the same
tiue; and manufacture and having different indorsements upon them, in the haud-
numbor^of writing of the prisoner. It likewise appeared, that when he was appre-
otliers hav- bonded he had in his possession paper and implements fit for making
^•hxuiatroiT ^'^^^^ *^^ ^^*^ same kind with those produced. The prisoner was found
which were guilty, but sentence was respited for the purpose of taking the opinion
of the same of the twelve iudffes, as to the admissibility of this evidence. They were
ture, with of opinion that it was admissible, to prove the knowledge of the prisoner
the prison- tl^at the note was forged, and that everything which he said or did was
writiuc'- on P^oper to be admitted to show his knowledge of the forgery. (^s)
the back of In another case where the prisoner was indicted for forging a promis-
^^sMAK ^^"^^ note, (not a note of the Bank of England) and also for uttering it,
^^^ evidence was given that, in the same pocket-book belonging to the

Crocker s pngoner in which the forged note was found, on which the indictment
case. Evi- ••■ o ' .

denco of proceeded, there was also found another promissory note for 100/.

another payable to the prisoner or order, appearing to be signed by one AVm.

missory Gappcr, which Wm. G-apper proved not to be his handwriting, and that

note iu the j^g never owed the prisoner 100/. This evidence of Gapper's note

pocketbook '^^'^ objected to by the prisoner's counsel, but the judge received the

where the evidence, (i)"]"

fo°uuiron Where in order to show guilty knowledge the prosecutor wished to

which the prove the uttering of another forged note jive iceeks after the uttering,

indictment ^IjJqIi ^as the subiect of the indictment, and it was obiected that only

proceeded. . •' , ' . •'. ''

previous acts could show quo animo the thing was done, it was held that

ino-s^after ""' ^^^ evidence was not admissible, unless the latter uttering was in some
the one Way connected with the principal case, or it could be shown that the
charged, notes were of the same manu facture. {ii\ And in a recent case of utter-
ing a forged acceptance, where for the purpose of proving guilty know-
ledge it was proposed to give in evidence other forged bills, precisely
similar, with the same drawers' and acceptors' names, &c., passed a
month after the uttering in question : Mr. J. G-aselee, after consulting
the Lord C. B. Alexander, was disposed to allow the evidence to be

(s) Rex V. Ball, Lewes Sum. Ass. 1808. 1 Campb. 324. Russ. & Ry. 132. In this case the
judges were of opinion that although it should appear upon a case reserved, that evidence
had been admitted at the trial which ought not to have been received, yet if there were am-
ple evidence to support the indictment, after rejecting such improper evidence, the convic-
tion ought not to be set aside.

{t) Rex V. Crocker, cor. Le Blanc, J., Salisbury Sum. Ass. 1805. 2 New R. 87, 88, ante, p.

390. The prisoner was convicted, and the casewas submitted to the consideration of the
twelve judges ; but their opinion upon this point does not appear. The prisoner was in fact
pardoned, and discharged ; but there were several objections to the conviction. It is, how-
ever, understood that the judges were of opinion that the witness was incompetent. See ante,

391, note {z), and Russ. & Ry. 97.

(m) Rex V. Taverner,^ Carr. Supp. 195. 4 C. & P. 413, note (a).

f {1 Harper's (S. C.) Rep. 59. StatcY. Petty.]
* Eng. ComXaw Reps. xix. 449.



CHAP. XXXII. § v.] OF THE EVIDENCE. 405

received and reserve the point, Avhen the counsel for the prosecution
declined to press the evidence. (t)

Upon indictments for uttering forged notes, other forged notes of Otlu-r furg-
other and diilcreut banks, either found upon the prisoner or uttered by ^t^.'^^f^^'
him, have been held admissible to prove guilty kuowledge. Thus on otherbanks
an indictment for uttering a forged llochdalc bank note, two forged 5/. "5^^",^^'^'"'^"
Bank of England notes have been admitted. (i«) So on an indictment
for uttering a forged 51. note of the Bank of Ireland, two forged notes
of Messrs. Ball and Co., bankers, Dublin, have been held admissible. (x)

So on an indictment for engraving and uttering notes of a foreign EngmvinK
prince, evidence of a recent engraving or uttering notes of another "''"-"'" """•''■'■
foreign prince is admissible to prove guilty knowledge. The prisoner
was indicted for forging and uttering a Polish note. In support of the
scienter as to this note, the prosecutor gave in evidence what took place
at a meeting on 24th August, ISoo, between the prisoner Balls, Harris,
and a person called Turner, at which Balls agreed with Flaum to make
him one thousand Austrian notes for fifty florins each, at the price of
three shillings for each note : oOl. was paid by Flaum to Balls in ad-
vance, and the 30?. was to be reckoned in account. Harris told Flauui
that the notes should be ready in six weeks ; Flaum was to have secu-
rity for the money, and a bill of exchange was drawn by Balls upon
Turner, which Turner accepted, *and Bulls signed and indorsed the *40t)
bill, and Harris also indorsed it; this evidence was objected to by the
counsel for the prisoner, as it was a transaction relative to Austrian
notes, which were of quite a diS"erent description from Polish notes,
and besides which no Austrian notes were in fact made, and the trans-
action took place a week before the 1st of September. The learned
judge admitted the evidence. The prosecutor had begun his case by
proving that in September, 1834, the prisoner had brought to an en-
graver a front plate already engraved, and a back plate ; the back plate
was not found to answer, and the engraver got another back plate,
which the prisoner directed the engraver to engrave ; the prisoner, who
as well as the engraver, was ignorant of the Polish language, said it
was for a mining ticket ; the engraver completed the back plate, and
took off 500 impressions from the front plate, and 500 impressions
from the back plate, and for which Balls paid him; and the engraver
stated that the plates had been a great deal used since the engraver
used them. This evidence was objected to, but the learned judge
admitted it, as there were counts for forging the note in the indictment,
as well as for uttering : and the learned judge did not then know
whether the note in the indictment might or might not turn out to be
taken from those plates ; at the close of the case, however, it appeared
that those plates were calculated to make impressions of Polish cash
notes, and that they could not have produced the note in the indict-
ment. That put an end to the counts for forging the notes, and the
learned judge thought there might be a question, as the note was not

(r) Rex V. Smith,* 4 C. & r.'411. The date of the hill on which the indictment was found-
ed was the 1st March, 1830, and it had been uttered on the ITith of;^May, IS.'JO: tlie other
bills were passed in June, 1830, but their dates are not mentioned.

(w) Sunderland's case, 1 Lew. 102.

(x) Kirkwood's case, 1 Lew. 103, Littledale, J. Sec also Martin's case, 1 Lew. 101, where
the same point was ruled by the same learned judge, but it is not stated of what bank the
notes were.

' Eng. Com. Law Reps. xix. 448.

Vol. il— 27



406 OF FORGERY. [bOOK IV.

taken from those plates, whether the evidence ought to have been
retained as admissible, so as to submit ifc to the jury in support of the
scienter on the remaining counts. The prisoner was found guilty, and
upon a case reserved, the judges determined that the evidence was
admissible, and the conviction was affirmed. (y)
As to tho In one casc(:;) where the prisoners were indicted for uttering forged
admissibi- .^Q^gg of the Ediubur2;h bank, it was doubted whether the uttering

Iitv 01 lor*'-

ed notes ° forged notes of the Paisley IJank, which formed the subject matter of
the subjects yj^otljgi. indictment, was admissible. In another case it was held, that
dictments? on an indictment for uttering a forged one pound Bank of England
note, tho uttering another forged one pound note, the subject of ano-
ther indictment, could not be given in evidence. (a) But in a subse-
quent case where the prisoner was indicted for uttering a forged 5^. note
of the Bank of Ireland, and two forged notes of the bank of Messrs.
Ball and Co., bankers, Dublin, were tendered in evidence, and it was
objected that these notes being the subject matter of another indictment,
were inadmissible ; Littledale, J., without hesitation, overruled the
objection. (i) And in another case the same learned judge held that
fori^ed notes, the subject of other indictments, were admissible, although
the names of the witnesses who were called to prove them forged, and
to connect the prisoners with thera, were not upon the back of the
bill.(c) So on an indictment for uttering a forged Bank of England
•407 note, Alderson, B., *admitted another forged Bank of England note in
evidence, although the subject of another indictment. Tf/) And in a late
case Lord Denman, C. J., said, that " he could not conceive how the
relevancy of the fact to the charge could be affected by its being the
subject of another charge ;" and offered to admit the evidence. (e)
Other notes But if the possession of other forged instruments is offered in evi-
must be (Jence to prove a guilty knowledge, there must be a regular evidence
be forged, that such instruments are forged, and proof that the prisoner returned
the money on any such instrument, and received the instrument back
again, is not sufficient without producing the instrument, or duly ac-
counting for its non-production. (/)
A former Upon an indictment for vittering a 51. note, it appeared that on a for-

uttenng of ^^^j. Q(3(>agiQ,j i\^q prisoner had paid away a 1^. note, that the woman to
forged rote whom he paid it, on finding it to be bad, sent word of it to the barracks,
which has thereupon the prisoner, accompanied by one of the Serjeants of the
troyed, and regiment, came to the woman's house to ask for the note, and to give
is not good money in exchange for it. They found, however, that the woman

havTbee'ri ^^^ given the note to the constable, whom they immediately sent for :
forged. the constable, however, did not come to thera, and the Serjeant and the
prisoner were obliged to return to the barracks without seeing him. But
before they went away, they left two half sovereigns to make good the
debt. Soon after they were gone, the constable came in, and finding
that the woman was satisfied as to her money, he put the note into the

(fj) Rex V. Balls," R. & M. C. C. R. 4l0. S. C. ? C. & P. 426, 429.

(z) Hodgson's case, 1 Lew. 103, Hullock, B., 1827.

(a) Rex V. Smith,b 2 C. & P. 633. Vaiigham, B., 182'7.

(bj Kirkwood's case, 1 Lew. 103, 1830.

(c) Martin's case, 1 Lew. 104, Littledale, J.

{d) Reg. V. Josiah Aston, Worcester Spr. Ass. 1838, MS. C. S. G.

(e) Reg. V. Lewis, Arch. Cr. P. 365, 8th edit.

{/) Rex V. Millard, Russ. & Ry. 245.

» Eng. Com. Law Reps, xxxii. 571. *■ lb. xii. 295.



CHAP. XXXII. § v.] OP THE EVIDENCE. 407

fire. When the facts relating to the uttering the 5/. note bad been
gone tbrougb, tbe counsel for the prosecution was about to prove ihcsc
facts respecting the 1^. note. But Bayley, J., interposed, and expressed
a strong doubt whether they were admissible, no evidence having been
given of the note being a forged note, and the note it.self not being
produced ; he, however consented to receive the evidence, stating, that
if the prisoner should be convicted, he would reserve the point for the
opinion of the judges. (y)

It has been held on the trial of an indictment for forging a bill of f't''''^nicnts
exchange that evidence of what the prisoner said respecting other bills rrc'petting
of exchange which arc not in evidence, is not admissible. (A) And al- bills which
though a letter written by the prisoner to a third person, stating that ju*ced*^or'^°"
that person's name is on another bill, and desiring him not to say that proved to
that bill is a forgery, is receivable in evidence, yet the jury ought not "^^ forged,
to consider it as evidence that the other bill is forged, unless such bill
is produced, and the forgery of it proved in the regular way. Upon an
indictment for forging and uttering an *acceptance of W. Prosser to a *408
bill of exchange, a letter written by the prisoner to one Lawrence, in
which he stated that a 20^. bill was the last one of Prosser's with Law-
rence's name upon it, and requested Lawrence on no account to say it
was a forged bill, and to be careful of speaking to Prosser, was tendered
in evidence, and objected to as it related to another bill, and, at all
events, that the bill to which it referred ought to be put in ; Coleridge,
J., held the letter receivable, and, in summing up, said, "With respect
to the letter that has been read, I think that you ought not to take it as
proof that the bill mentioned in it is forged. Bills which are not the
subject of indictment, are often given in evidence to show guilty know-



Online LibraryWilliam Oldnall RussellA treatise on crimes and misdemeanors (Volume 2) → online text (page 67 of 178)