1798. REEVES'S CASE. his principal was a great man at the Stock Exchange, who returned a 100,000l. a day, three or four times over, and that the more stock he brought into the market, the more the price of it would be depressed; and that his wishes to keep up the price, was the reason why he did not chuse to fund the property. These seven Scrip receipts were for the Loan in the year 1796, for 7,500,000l. the first payment on which had been really made on the 26th April, 1796, and the receipt signed by "C. Olier," one of the cashiers of the Bank of England, and entered " W. Bridges;" but all the receipts for the subsequent payments, which were signed in the name of "C. Olier," and entered by the name of " S. Stevens," appeared to have been forged; for it was proved, by William Mulleen, and Charles Jecks, two other cashiers, and by Robert Aslet, an assistant cashier, that the signature, "C. Olier" to all the receipts for all the payments except the first, was not the hand-writing of Mr. Christopher Olier, the cashier, whose name it purported to be (a), and that there was no person of the name of Stevens belonging to the Bank as an entering clerk of Scrip receipts; but that it was a fictitious name. It was also proved, that no payment, except the first, had ever been made at the Bank on the Scrip receipt No. 1138, for 670l. or on any of the others. WOOD, KNAPP, and BALMANNO, for the prisoner, submitted three objections to the consideration of the Court. FIRST OBJECTION. The Scrip receipt produced in evidence, bears the signature "C. Olier;" and the indictment charges the prisoner with having forged a receipt, purporting to be the receipt of "Christopher Olier;" and therefore the evidence does not prove the fact charged in the indictment; for the letters "C. Olier," may signify the name of Charles Olier, (a) Mr. Olier was himself called to prove that the name " C. Olier," to the second receipts, was not his hand-writing; but his evidence of this fact was objected to by the Counsel for the prisoner, on the ground that he, being the person whose name was charged to be forged, was so far interested as to render him incompetent; and, after argument, THE COURT were of opinion that the objection was good; and his testimony was accordingly rejected. 1798. REEVES'S sion 1795, page 657. Case 280. Catharine Olier, or any other Christian name beginning with a C, as well as Christopher Olier. This point has been already solemnly decided by THE TWELVE JUDGES, in the case of Rex CASE. v. Gilchrist (1), who was tried in this Court for forging an (1) Ante, order for the payment of money, purporting to be signed by February SesT. Exton, and to be directed to Lord George Kinnaird, William Moreland, and Thomas Hammersley, bankers and partners, by the name of Ransom, Moreland and Hammersley; but the bill produced in evidence was directed "to Messrs. Ransom, Moreland and Hammersley, and it was objected, that the bill did not purport to be directed to Lord George Kinnaird, William Moreland and Thomas Hammersley, as stated in the indictment; and this case being saved for the opinion of THE JUDGES, they were unanimously of opinion, that it was impossible a bill of exchange, directed" to Ransom, Moreland and Hammersley," could purport to be directed to Lord George Kinnaird, William Moreland and Thomas Hammersley; and the prisoner was discharged (a). This case is precisely parallel with the present case. There is also the case of Rex v. Jones (2), who was indicted before LORD (2) Ante, MANSFIELD for uttering a certain forged paper writing, pur- page 204. porting to be A BANK-NOTE. The note set out was signed "For self and Company of my Bank of England;" and on a case reserved, it was determined that the note did not purport, on the face of it, to be a Bank-note, as charged in the indictment, and that no representation made by the prisoner when he uttered it, could alter its purport. FIELDING, for the Crown, was stopped by the Court from answering this objection. THE COURT thought the present case differed, in some degree, from both the cases cited, inasmuch as the note in Jones's Case did not purport to be a Bank-note; and therefore the indictment, charging that it did so purport, was bad; (a) See Edsall's Case, Southampton Spring Assizes 1798, where the indictment charged the instrument forged as purporting to be directed to "Richard Down, Henry Thornton, John Freer, and John Cornwall," when in fact it was directed to "Messrs. Down, Thornton and Co.," and held bad. Case 103. 1798. REEVES'S CASE. On an indictment for forging a Scrip receipt, it must appear that the receipt was signed subsequent to the statute on dictment is founded; but, though signed before, yet if it was uttered after the passing of the Act, the prisoner may be convicted on the count for uttering it, knowing it to be forged. (1) See the case of Rex v. Lyons, ante, page 597.Case 267. and in Gilchrist's Case, as the name of Lord Kinnaird did not appear on the face of the bill, it could not purport to be directed to him: but that, in the present case, this Scrip receipt being subscribed with the name C. Olier, and the indietment charging that it purported to be signed in the name of Christopher Olier, a cashier of the Bank of England, it was not, upon the face of it, repugnant to the bill, or inconsistent with itself. But, to remove all doubt, this point was saved for the consideration of THe Judges. THE SECOND OBJECTION. This indictment is founded upon the statute 36 Geo. III. c. 74, intitled "An Act for raising the Sum of Seven Millions, Five Hundred Thousand Pounds, by Way of Annuities," and which statute is made to commence from the 14th May 1796. It is an Act that is wholly prospective; for it is enacted by the twenty-second section, passing of the "that if any person or persons shall forge or counterfeit, or which the in- procure to be forged or counterfeited, or shall willingly act or assist in the forging or counterfeiting, any receipt or receipts for the whole of, or any part or parts of, the said contributions towards the said sum of seven millions, five hundred thousand pounds, either with or without the name or names of any person or persons being inserted therein, as the contributor or contributors thereto, or payer or payers thereof, or of any part or parts thereof (1), or shall alter any number, figure or word therein, or utter or publish, as true, any such false, forged, counterfeited or altered receipt or receipts, with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, or any Body Politic or Corporate, or any person or persons whatsoever, every person or persons so forging or counterfeiting, or causing or procuring to be forged or counterfeited, or willingly acting or assisting in the forging or counterfeiting, or altering, uttering or publishing as aforesaid, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and suffer death as a felon, without benefit of clergy." It is necessary, before any person can be legally convicted upon this clause of the statute, that it should be clearly and distinctly proved that the receipt which is the subject of inquiry, was actually forged subsequent to the passing of this Act. No evidence of this material fact has been given in the present case; and therefore the prisoner cannot be convicted of the offence charged in this indictment. Several receipts were deposited by the prisoner with Mr. Ashforth, in the month of June 1796, at which time there was only the receipt thereon dated the 26th April 1796, which was before the passing of the Act. The first receipt upon the present instrument is of the same date; and the receipts for the subsequent payments are not dated. It does not appear that the receipt, No. 1138, 1000l. 3 per Cents, 670l. which is the subject of the present inquiry, was among the scrip receipts so delivered in the month of June; if it had so appeared, it would have been clear that the receipts for the second and subsequent payments must have been written thereon after the passing of the Act; but Mr. Ashforth says that he cannot ascertain whether any of the six receipts that appeared to be paid in full, which were given to him by the prisoner in the Rotunda at the Bank, were among the Scrip receipts which he originally received from him in the month of June; and if they were not, there is not a tittle of evidence from which the Jury can presume that the receipts were written after the 14th May, when the Act commenced. The presumption indeed is, that as the first receipt is dated the 26th April, the subsequent receipts were written at the same time; and if they were, the prisoner cannot be found guilty. THE COURT thought it unnecessary for the Counsel on the part of the Crown to reply. It is for the Jury to say, whether, upon the whole of the evidence, the receipt was forged subsequent to the passing of the Act; but this consideration only relates to the counts which charge the prisoner with the actual forgery of these receipts, and if they should even be of opinion that they were forged before 14th May, yet if the prisoner after that time uttered and published them as true, knowing them to be false, the offence charged in the other counts is completed. The second set of counts appear to have been entirely overlooked. Both questions are for the Jury to determine. 1798. REEVES'S 1798. REEVES'S the full sum, will become intitled to so much 3 per Cent. Consols, is a good receipt, for a new Loan raised on that fund. THE THIRD OBJECTION. The receipt which this indictment charges to have been forged, is not a receipt within the terms and description of the statute on which the indictment is founded. To constitute an offence within this Act, A Scrip receipt, stating that the the receipt charged to be forged must purport to be a receipt subscriber, on for a subscription or contribution made for the purpose of payment of purchasing the annuities therein described. The statute recites, that the Commons of Great Britain being desirous to raise the necessary supplics, have resolved that the sum of seven millions five hundred thousand pounds be raised by annuities in the manner therein after-mentioned; and enacts, that every contributor towards raising the said sum shall, for every one hundred pounds contributed and paid, either in money or exchequer bills, be intitled to the principal sum of one hundred pounds in the three per cent. consols, and to an additional principal sum of twenty pounds in like annuities, and also to a further principal sum of twenty-five pounds in three per cent. reduced annuities, and also, in respect of every such hundred pounds so contributed, to a further annuity of five shillings and sixpence, to continue for a certain term of sixty-three years and nine months, from 5th April 1796: the interest on the consolidated annuities to commence from 5th January 1796, and the interest on the reduced annuities from the 5th April 1796. It then further enacts, "That all money to which any person or persons shall become intitled by virtue of the Act, in respect of any sum advanced or contributed towards the said sum of seven millions five hundred thousand pounds, on which the said respective annuities first mentioned, after the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, shall be attending, shall be added to the joint stock of annuities transferable at the Bank of England, into which the several sums carrying an interest after the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, were by the statutes 25 Geo. II. c. 25, the 28 Geo. II. c. 15, the 29 Geo. II. c. 7. the 32 Geo. II. c. 10, & the 33 Geo. II. c. 12, and by several subsequent Acts, consolidated, and shall be deemed part of the said joint stock of annuities, subject nevertheless to redemption by parliament in such manner, and upon such notice, as in the 6 |